Adobe is making some big changes today, having issued an "intra-quarter update" that includes significant restructuring as the company attempts to refocus itself on "Digital Media and Digital Marketing." Part of the restructuring also apparently includes no longer updating its Flash plugin for mobile devices, which right now primarily is used on Android and RIM's PlayBook platform. In a statement given to ZDNet, Adobe instead said that it would focus on Adobe AIR apps instead:
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 adapt Flash Player for mobile devices to new browser, OS version or device configurations. Some of our source code licensees may opt to continue working on and releasing their own implementations. We will continue to support the current Android and PlayBook configurations with critical bug fixes and security updates.
Google, BlackBerry, and even HP with its webOS platform have all at one point or another touted the Flash plugin as key to the ability to access the "full web," but of course iOS devices like the iPhone and iPad have never supported it. More recently, both RIM and Google have dedicated more attention to HTML5 than to Flash on their platforms.
Adobe may have hinted at this move earlier today in a statement detailing its new direction, noting that it would be "shifting resources to support even greater investment in HTML5," and "focusing Flash resources on delivering the most advanced PC web experiences, including gaming and premium video, as well as mobile apps." The mobile Flash plugin was notably absent from the list of Adobe's future directions. As a part of the restructuring, Adobe also announced that it will be laying off approximately 750 full-time employees in North America and Europe, though we have no word about which specific divisions will be hit.
This certainly looks like a sign that Apple has won the battle over whether Flash belongs on mobile devices, as Adobe appears to be transitioning itself to an HTML5 future.
Comments
Really thought a plugin crashed. Still listening The VergeCast, good job guys! 2 Hours+ of entertaining discussions.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:08 AM EST reply Recommend (30) Flag actions
Another great reason to convert your Flash site into HTML5.
In case you weren’t aware, Flash sites :
- Don’t work on 250 MILLION iPhones & iPads.
- They are unusable to 1 BILLION SmartPhone Users.
- Don’t fully show up on Google Search.
- Content is Not Shareable on Facebook & Twitter.
- Are not SEO Optimized.
We can help : www.ConvertMyFlash.com
We convert FLASH sites into HTML5 sites ( powered by WordPress ) in just 72hrs.
Enabling your business to stay competitive and ahead of the game
Get in touch!
Alex | Converter
buzz@convertymflash.com
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You forgot:
- Plugging your own site
- ???
- $$$
- Priceless!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:02 AM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Wow, that’s a bummer. While I have not used it too often, it was good to have the flash plugin on my phone.
I have to hope, though, that this will drive more websites towards native HTML5 video (once the browser developers can somehow agree on a common open video format).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:10 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Same here. Found it really useful with things like embedded post match interviews on the BBC Football pages and the like.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:54 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Hopefully the BBC will also move away from Flash to HTML5 so you can continue to watch your clips
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:33 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Annoyingly they already do support HTML5/non-flash just fine as you can use the iPlayer via the browser just fine on an iPhone and i assume other mobile devices, unfortunately they haven’t done the same on the news or sports sites for clips as yet.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:38 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Ah, was this the instance when they came up with a neat non Flash solution and a lot of Android users were then complaining that they wanted the same option, rather than having to use Flash to view the same content?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You do know that Google (the developers of Android) are full supporters of Flash right?
Not everything has to be a zero-sum game.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:16 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Fucking no edit. “Full supporters of HTML5”
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:16 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I feel your pain – the number of times I’ve smacked my forehead on this site after hitting post – it just isn’t funny.
Down with Flash – Up with Edit buttons!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:48 AM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
And whats with the no email notifications to responses?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I like the fact that e-mail notifications to responses isn’t implemented right now. Less flaming.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 3:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, yeas and no. By refusing to support H.264 in HTML 5, Google has ensured that the HTML 5 standard will be that much harder to be agreed on. I can’t help thinking that was their main purpose.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I dunno – it could just be that they don’t want to pay the license fees. After all they forked Java to avoid paying Sun any fees, seems pretty easy to imagine that they’d do the same with H.264.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I hope HTML5 finally gains the features Flash offers. Usually the HTML5 video players are far less flexible and far more bare-bones than the Flash ones.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://sublimevideo.net/demo
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:01 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually, the BBC have already started rolling out HTML5 video on their main website. See http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/1/2529310/html-5-video-on-bbc-for-ios-devices
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:17 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It was nice to have when In a bind
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:30 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
So I guess that’s one less bullet point at press conferences.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:11 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So, now there down to just one? “Open”?
I kid! I kid!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:46 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
It’s lie Steve saw the future.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:11 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Like not lie
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:12 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
So does this count as admitting Apple was right?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:14 AM EST reply Recommend (31) Flag actions
I would believe so… As simple as that. They didn’t want to waste time or money and invest it on HTML5 instead.
Hope the rest of the web follows to standards and no more Flash or Silverlight or other plug-ins!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:28 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
If you predict the doom of something it will come true some day. In 2 years, in 20 or in 20 billion. We are 5 years after the Flash-less iPhone and only now it seems like it might be the case that finally we probably might get over Flash in 2-3 years (maybe).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:25 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Erm, you can’t start counting at the launch of the iPhone, because there was no viable mobile Flash at that point. The first mobile device that ran Flash remotely acceptably was probably the Playbook – which is ironic in and of itself.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:50 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They’d been promising mobile flash for the old Windows Mobile since 2003.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
BS bro. BS..
I remember watching Naruto and DBZ episodes on my Nexus One late at night. I wish the controls were bigger but it worked. It was better than getting up and having to sit at my computer desk.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
4 and change.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There has been a new development in mathamatics that they have dubbed “rounding”. The iPhone was introduced in mid-January 2007, this announcement was made in mid-November 2011. That is a difference of 4 years and 10 months, and as you said, “4 and change”. However if we apply the magic of rounding we can see that 10 months is really close to 12, in fact it is well over the halfway point that we use to decide which direction to “round”, So Strabo’s comment of 5 years was correct and yours was irrelevant.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except that there was no mobile flash available in 2007, or 2008 for that matter. When rounding it’s best to start with the correct numbers.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:22 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Go back and read threads from the day the iPhone was announced, any of the major news sites will still have them along with Reddit, Digg and Slashdot. The lack of Flash was an issue from day one. Apple’s argument was that there was no mobile version (the same argument you are making now). Eventually, around 2010 Adobe started making inroads in the mobile space but it wasn’t until Jan 2011 when the Playbook was announced that a decent version even existed. The Galaxy S2 is currently the only Android device that has a decent version of Flash. So yes I stand by my assertion that this has been a 5 year battle.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No it wasn’t – it was a press storm from day one – but it wasn’t an issue because no mobile devices had flash in 2007!!!!!!!!.
By definition Apple’s lack of support for Mobile Flash could not be an issue until Mobile Flash existed to be supported – sometime around 2010.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Flash on Mobile was not really an issue at that time. The height of the feud between Apple and Adobe was reached in the spring of 2010 when Steve Jobs posted an open letter and Adobe took out full page ads in the Wall Street Journal to badmouth Apple. I don’t recall anyone at that time saying that Adobe would give up within 18 months. Actually there were many who said that this would be the iPhone’s downfall.
This is another instance of Apple haters going ballistic over a certain topic and later claiming nothing ever happened.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:07 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s a given. Let’s go back in history shall we?
Apple haters of the late 70’s and early 80’s:
Hey! I need my expansion slots even though I don’t know what I will be using them for!
Hey! Personal computers will never work, mainframes and client consoles connected to aforementioned mainframes are the ONLY way to implement computers!
Apple haters of the late 80’s and early 90’s:
Nothing much came out of them since they just assumed that Apple will just disappear.
Apple haters of the mid 90’s to mid 2000’s:
iMacs? Pffft, that’s just a toy my first computer. Useless, just a fad.
iPods? Pffft, you can’t drag and drop files and use them like a normal MP3 player (aka, nothing more than a glorified harddrive). It’s never going to last.
iPods took over the music player market? Pffft, it’s not going to last because all these other digital music players can do like 127.9 different things.
iTunes? Pffft, I’m fine paying more money by buying CDs and then ripping them.
Apple haters of 2007-Present:
iPhones? Pffft, my Windows Mobile is better, iPhones are just a fad. They don’t support Flash. They don’t support drag and drop. They don’t have the 287.34 things that my Symbian/Windows Mobile phone has. They don’t have a physical keyboard, touchscreen keyboards will NEVER work.
iPads? Pffft, just a big glorified iPhone. Stupid, pointless. Never going to sell anywhere near the number of netbooks and Windows Tablet PCs. iPads are going to be just a movie player and e-reader at best. It’s not a computer. You can’t do any work on it.
iOS in the enterprise? NEVER going to happen, RIM and Microsoft all the way. There’s never going to be enough demand to allow iOS on to our networks. We’re only going to allow Windows on our systems and BlackBerry’s.
Finally, we have the inane argument from the haters now of:
Steve Jobs has passed away, it’s time for Apple to FAIL (you know, just like how the Apple haters have predicted Apple’s collapse for the last 40+ years, come on now, if one keeps predicting it, it should eventually happen right? Right?).
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 3:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Of course apple was right about flash. I don’t think they were right not to support it and to make unsubstantiated claims about it though. But about flash itself as a technology, of course they were right.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That doesn’t make sense. If they were right that it was an insecure, bug-ridden, poorly performing bag of hurt that wasn’t designed for the touch input paradigm then why should they have supported it?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:02 AM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Because you know how all the pundits are, if there is a feature in existence, the BEST device should support it based purely on principle.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 3:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
not really, the reason apple didnt want flash is plain and simple: all the apps come from the app store = $$$. of course they came up with up with other reasons as PR talk, but its just bullshit.
on the other hand html5 is inevitable, apple wont be able to prevent users from using mobile web apps
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The app store = $$$ argument is hogwash. Apple originally didn’t even want apps; they wanted web apps. When users demanded apps, they brought them in, but still support web apps, only pushing hard for HTML5 over Flash for technical and openness reasons. Apple’s been pushing for web apps since the beginning. You remember everyone critiquing Apple for their original stance on apps? Well, looks like Jobs was ahead of his time … Again …
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:04 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
again, html5=the future, its not the present.
apparently im giving the wrong impression here, but i really hate flash, its a security risk, its inefficient, it should just die. but i also dislike people believing the PR reasons apple gave for not supporting flash
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:26 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
just repeating it again and again is a mantra, not an argument.
The reasons Apple gave were correct. Flash performance was poor, Flash security was terrible and Flash was designed for mouse/keyboard not for touch – so Flash apps would need to be recoded again anyway.
HTML-5 web apps for simple stuff and native apps for more sophisticated things are the present.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:29 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
So according to your logic, we should just slow down innovation to a crawl because we should never fully drop dead weight as long as it still exists right? This industry is one in which most of the major players are reluctant to change. Whenever they hit on something that makes money, they will milk it indefinitely as opposed to continuing innovation. Apple has been WELL KNOWN since their inception to drop technologies cold turkey. It’s one of the main reasons they consistently make what looked like nothing more than a gimmick into industry standards. Look at optical drives, Apple adopted optical drives as standard because they saw it as a technology that had legs, the rest of the industry didn’t adopt optical drives as a standard until years later. Look at optical drives now, Apple is phasing it out since they are seeing that going forward, optical drives really do not have much of a role to play. Heck, look at Blu-Ray, Apple REFUSED and STILL refuses to include Blu-Ray on the Macs as they saw the technology not being a technology that would make headway in the future, they bet the farm on digital distribution as being the sustainable method of content distribution, they were ultimately right seeing how Blu-Ray is STILL not a technology that is widely adopted (it’s pretty much up there with 3D TVs).
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 3:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s clearly garbage because the iPhone supported HTML-5 web apps before it supported native apps via the App Store – and the App Store is essentially run at break even? Apple wanted apps to either be powerful and well written native apps or lightweight web apps running on a browser that Apple could ensure was high performance. Flash fitted neither category.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:04 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
html5 is the future, not the present
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Though it may seem like a reason, I don’t think the App Store part is true, I think it comes down to two things:
1. Apple aggressively deprecates things (floppy, optical drive, flash) that they see as dying in the near future.
2. They prefer things that are standards or under their control. You can argue that Flash was a standard all that you want, but it’s just not true.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:04 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s simply not true. When Apple released the iPhone without Flash, Apple and Steve Jobs were adamantly against 3rd party apps. THere were no plans for Flash or for 3rd party apps – only for “Web 2.0” web apps. It took a lot of convincing to get Jobs to agree to 3rd party apps and it was over a year before the App store appeared. Besides that, while Apple makes a little bit of money on the app store, they don’t make that much. Apple is a hardware company. Their services exist to sell hardware at a 30% margin.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:07 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m not sure how adamant they really were against 3rd party apps at that point – some of that may have been marketing cover while they worked internally at tidying up APIs and getting things ready to switch from private to public. Given that the public API became available after only a year they almost had to have been working on it from shortly after the iPhone was released, even while they insisted that web apps were the way to go.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:11 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Steve was very against them. The other guys in Apple had to convince him.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:38 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
if i gave you the choice between taking 1000 usd with your right hand, or 1200 with your left hand, which choice do you take? do you take 1000 because you are not left handed?. apple is not a hardware company, steve jobs said so many times, the software is what really matters (im not saying that i agree or disagree).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:23 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
How much does it cost me to take the $1000 and how much does it cost me to takt the $1200? I don’t recall that Jobs ever said that Apple wasn’t a hardware company, and if he did I suspect that is was more like "we’re not just a hardware company. I’d like to see that quote.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
cant find it right now, 90% of my seach results are filled with news of his death
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
do you really think he would work so hard and spend all this time and R&D making ‘perfect’ laptops, phones and tablets …. just to say “we aren’t a hardware company” … they practically give the iOS updates away for free and $30-$60 for OSX updates. It’s always been a marriage of software and hardware together. But hardware is where they make their money.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:52 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
apple hardware is just looks, several products have design and quality issues.
IIRC he said so in an interview he had together with bill gates.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 10:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is a lot about looks and a lot of the aesthetic design issues have lead to the quality issues. However, it’s not aesthetics without reason. The aesthetic design of the hardware has ALWAYS gone hand in hand with facilitating the user experience. In many ways, the aesthetic design of a product can be considered as PART of the UI. Let’s be honest here, people have ALWAYS judged a book by its cover. We might find out that the book sucks later one but we picked the thing up initially because the cover drew us in. A beautiful aesthetic design helps attract a user to use the product in the first place. It has to be pleasing to the eye, to the touch. The outside has to be just as well designed as it is on the inside. These two things goes hand in hand. All great products in the history of mankind ultimately married aesthetic design with great functionality to some extent (excluding first generation products or prototypes, if you look at those, let’s say, a telephone, ultimately the best telephone also happens to be the best looking phone as well as the best functioning phone).
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 3:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And they make money on free apps (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, G+, etc) how? Even taking into account the yearly developer fee, if your free app gets downloaded more than a certain number of times Apple is losing money on the bandwidth and electricity alone. It may be that their cut of paid apps makes that up (I’ve heard the App Store approximately breaks even), but it’s still a factor.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
apparently you have no idea how much electricity, bandwidth and servers cost.
as for the free aplications, many have ads, and a lot are paid. more than enough to pay for the whole thing several times.
just look at it this way, a game on steam costs 20-60 times the price of an app. and the size is between 500-1000 times the size of an app, and you can redownload the game unlimited times. consider how youtube can host videos the size of 20 apps by just showing some adds. so, server costs are not that big.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is a publicly traded company so we know exactly where it makes money and where it doesn’t. It makes its money from hardware. iTunes and the app store approximately break even.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:31 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Not exactly true. Apple actually makes a great deal of money from selling content. The thing is, when compared to their revenue stream from hardware, the content side of the business is only a fraction of their revenue stream. Don’t get me wrong, Apple IS mainly a hardware company as the lions share of their revenue comes from hardware, but they are definitely doing MUCH MUCH better than simply breaking even with their content business.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 4:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is making only 1 % of their profits on the AppStore. You should check out their balance sheet.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple was right back when they said that. Never was my argument more the argument of people who “got” it. But its been nice to use until HTML 5 was ready, that time has come
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:31 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow. This is some surprising news.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:16 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
It is? :)
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well at least we can flash this down the toilet. Jobs must be giggling right about now
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:16 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
We’ll flush Flash once Google gets its dominant video service onto a real standard (ie not WebM).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:55 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
YouTube is already available as H.264 on iOS.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:58 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
When I go to youtube.com on my Windows Phone, it says I need flash to play content. That’s what I’m talking about – I want Google to move their entire library onto a standard that browsers can simply access, no apps necessary.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 11:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I really want to believe that the WebM support was a gambit to get MPEG-LA to make h.264 rights open in perpetuity and squash the 5-year review block. We’ll see, I guess…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Can you hear that? That’s laughter and high-fives coming from Cupertino right now.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:19 AM EST reply Recommend (48) Flag actions
No they are kinda sad !! Others will have slightly better web experience now
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:32 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Honestly, Adobe needs to do some soul searching. I know it’s a marketing term, but what is their place in the post-PC era? They’ve had almost 5 years to get Flash working on mobile, and now this?
And on a personal note, transitioning my copy of CS3 over to Lion was awful (no downloadable copy). So awful, that I illegally downloaded CS5 just to have a working copy. And I use their video conferencing tools for work, and those go down pretty frequently.
To quote one of the Bobs, “What is it you say you do here?”
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:20 AM EST reply Recommend (21) Flag actions
Adobe knew full well that HTML5 is the future, however, they wanted to have some apps out first before they touted as the next big thing.
Even they have to have known that the mobile Flash experience is horrible even with the latest and greatest CPUs. HTML5 is far more system efficient and saves more battery life.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree. The whole company has gone downhill and they’re cutting jobs left and right. The idea that they will go after AIR apps is as dumb as supporting Flash on mobile.
There used to be a time when Adobe was one of the most creative companies out there. That time has long since passed.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:42 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Logged in just to recommend.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:10 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
steve jobs is dead, stop repeating his buzzwords.
post-PC= apple doesnt see a way to beat windows, so they try to make computers irrelevant inside the RDF
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The smartphone market is already larger than the PC market, and soon will be much larger. Unless Windows is successful on phones/tablets it will become a niche operating system.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really? Have you no forward thinking?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Five years? They prommised MS Flash for Windows Mobile back in like 2003.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Adobe doesn’t make money from Flash per se, they make money from the sale of tools. People are still going to need tools to produce content in HTML5.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That was a recommendation of the anti-Flash crowd since this discussion began with Apple’s refusal to put Flash on iOS devices. One that the pro-Flash crowd mostly jeered while extolling the virtues of Flash – well…at least I think they were, the video was stuttering so much that I couldn’t make out exactly what they were saying before the battery died.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:53 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well, good riddance I say. I’ll gladly transition into something that doesn’t eat my already horrible battery life up instantly or/and crashes at random.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:21 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
i enjoyed the option of flash on my android devices,always used it I on demand. As regards battery life , watching video on my phones or tablets always killed the battrey life faster. So having flash on demand did not seem to have any effect on battrey performance
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:57 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
In Walter Mossberg’s review of the original iPad, he got 11.5 hours of battery life while continuously playing video with the screen bright and WiFi enabled.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:44 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
“This certainly looks like a sign that Apple has won the battle over whether Flash belongs on mobile devices, as Adobe appears to be transitioning itself to an HTML5 future.”
I’m just glad that Android at least supported it over the last 18 months. Even though performance wasn’t always the best, I definitely enjoyed being able to visit sites that relied on Flash content.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
honestly, i’m just kinda glad that we’ll be seeing an android future that is “flash-less”. not that i like having less functionality, i actually like having the option of having flash on a device. what i dont like hearing is fandroid folk who use it as a talking point on why the platform is great, but in reality don’t even use it themselves.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:29 AM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
I agree…I mean I use flash from time to time but I hated it being touted as a talking point…almost all talking points for anything are annoying…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:15 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The Flash experience is awful on both my Transformer and my HTC Inspire. The audio is always out of sync, sometimes the video never plays at all and even when everything does work as intended, it brings my devices to their knees.
How Flash ever became a talking point against iOS is beyond me. It barely even works.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:57 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
On the other hand if Android had not supported it more of those site may have switched to HTML5 sooner.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:32 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I can almost hear Steve shouting, “HA. I KNEW IT,” from somewhere in the ether.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Awesome, hopefully it will drag down those Flash riddled websites.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:24 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I don’t have Flash on any of my mobile or desktop computers and I enjoy a Flash free existence. I’m now dreading all of the crap that I don’t currently see now being shown as HTML5 instead.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As much as I hate to agree with anything Gruber writes, his summary at the end of his post on the layoffs today exactly nails how I feel about Adobe.
You used to deliver awesome tools. Get back to that. It’s not hard, they’re still there, under all the added crap you’ve layered on upgrade after upgrade, under the dubious UI. Stop thinking that you’re Microsoft.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:24 AM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
> As much as I hate to agree with anything Gruber writes
Why? I think Gruber is pretty actually pretty and would be willing to defend him anyways, but you even posted a picture of your Apple-heavy workstation in your comment history. Now I’m even more curious as to what your problem with him is.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:51 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You have got to be kidding me, that looks so ridiculous. We really need an edit or delete function here, this is crazy.
I meant to say “I think Gruber is actually pretty good and…”
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:52 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There are no mistakes. Well, maybe this once: Gruber just ain’t pretty.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:10 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Those soulful eyes, that tousled hair, Gruber is kinda pretty :)
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:05 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Just because he has an Apple workstation, the guy is supposed to love (and defend) Gruber? Or more precisely, do you assume people hate Apple because they might not like someone who is an Apple enthusiast?
My friend, the world is not as black and white as you’d like to think.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
> Just because he has an Apple workstation, the guy is supposed to love (and defend) Gruber?
Nope, but I would have expected him to offer no opinion rather than a negative one. That actually is a first for me. He also follows the Macalope, Joshua and Nilay on Twitter, and he reads the Verge, on top of being an Apple fan. There is so much in common it surprised me is all.
> do you assume people hate Apple because they might not like someone who is an Apple enthusiast?
I have to be honest, this is the first person that I’ve seen speak ill about him that didn’t follow it up with something along the lines of “because he’s an Apple shill”. So yeah, I guess I do assume that because of past experience.
> My friend, the world is not as black and white as you’d like to think.
My friend, I’m not as stupid as you would like to think. I’m well aware of our nuanced world. I’m also aware of what is common and what isn’t. Being an Apple fan and actively disliking Gruber is not extremely common. Unaware? Sure, most are. Indifferent? Again, no doubt. Genuine dislike? That, I would like to know the reasons behind.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I figured that’s what you meant. I like Apple, Gruber likes Apple, this does not equal me liking Gruber or his style.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Of course not, but you also follow the Macalope on Twitter, read the Verge, follow Nilay and Joshua, and on top of that you’re an Apple fan. It just strikes me as odd, is all. Do you have a reason? I’m genuinely curious.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Holy crap. This is absolutely huge.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
All the girls say that to me…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:32 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
lol, I was going to report a bug on the main page when I saw that image.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:28 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
While I thought it was BS at first I’ve come around to see things the same way Steve Jobs did regarding Flash. I think it served a purpose that can be surpassed by HTML5 now and I don’t miss it on my iPhone or my iPad.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:29 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I agree that it can be surpassed by HTML5 – that was never the question. The question was on the timing. One unfortunate thing about Steve, was that once he got something in his head, he’d charge forward even if it meant killing off something immediately good (and in turn temporarily screwing his customers)
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:53 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You are trying to change history here. Back in 2007 when Jobs declared iOS a no flash zone there was no implementation of flash on mobile. Flash didn’t become remotely decent on Mobile until 2010 if you’re being generous, 2011 if you’re being accurate. Even the head of Adobe was forced to pick the Playbook as the first mobile device that ran Flash well (in his interview with Mossberg).
Jobs did sometimes jump the gun on technology, but in this instance he spared his consumers years of having a substandard product inflicted upon them.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:54 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
“Inflicted” implies having no choice. Indeed, Android users are not forced to install Flash, but it’s a nice option.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
By not supporting Flash, Apple forced YouTube to support HTML-5 H.264. They forced web developers to take the harder route to delivering a better product. If they’d supported Flash, or announced that Flash would end up supported then it would have been tempting for web developers to keep relying on it.
Consumers are all too often at the mercy of content creators. Apple used its leverage to force content creators to better serve consumers, and the leverage it had was publicly repudiating Flash.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:44 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Adobe Air can Zuck off…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Initial reaction – “What?”
5 seconds later – “LOL!”
While I will concede the fact that Flash plays a huge role on the web, its purpose on mobile devices was never really that clear to me as sites made mobile HTML5 versions of their sites and major video sites converted their content to H.264.
Also, Flash always annoys me on my iMac, but that’s just my experience.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:30 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Why do you run Flash on your iMac then? I don’t have Flash on any of my Mac or Windows computers so I’m not bothered by it.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So that he can watch flash videos durrrrr
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This comes 30 mins after Nvidia release a promo video touting how much better Tegra 3 can do Flash. Ouch.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:31 AM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Flash hardly goes away tomorrow. Or in the next month. Maybe in 2-3 years.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:28 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Now if they could just unbundle flash from Chrome, that’d be fantastic.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:32 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Only a matter of time. Unfortunately for Google, WebM isn’t going taking the world by storm either.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:53 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m more annoyed that the only Youtube HTML5 plugin for Windows PCs I can find is for Safari.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Open Safari. Visit http://www.youtube.com/html5 – Click on “Join the trial”.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think you misread that. He’s annoyed that he ‘has to use’ Safari on Windows. It’s not a matter of he doesn’t know how to use it.
-
Haven’t checked it myself, but are you SURE it’s only Safari?? That seems a bit odd.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It works fine in Chrome, and I would be surprised if Firefox isn’t supported.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
God no! I really hope they don’t do that, on my Mac Chrome is my “Flash browser” which I use in case of emergencies and I absolutely have to go to a Flash enabled site.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:15 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Now I don’t fear dumping my Nexus One after two years for an iPhone.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:33 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
I still use Flash on my MacBook Air. A lot of the websites I visit still use Flash. I really do not care whether Flash survives or not, but if it wont be supported on my mobile, I hope website designers stop using it. It would be nice to have a common desktop and mobile experience.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:33 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Fo realz? Air apps make me giggle. Having flash on a mobile device was one of those things tablet makers other than Apple tried to tout as a bonus when they had nothing else.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:35 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No! The last patch killed the video playback (but not audio) on my phone. Thanks Adobe for taking the one awesome thing we had.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s ridiculous that they see some sort of potential in Air. It’s probably the worst piece of software I’ve ever used. I’m definitely not a fan of Flash, but Air is much worse than that.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:38 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I think Adobe seems to be confused about where to go. I do not like this Flash for PC and HTML5 + Adobe Air for mobile. If Adobe drops Flash for mobile, I think it would be best to kill flash all together.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:41 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
AAPL won
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
APPL is collapsing. APPL is actually desperate,.
Android supports full Flash now, what more is there for Adobe to do about it? The job is done. All Android devices will support full flash in the future, APPL devices won’t.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Errr….you should read up on current events more often.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:33 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Until the next crippling security hole. I give it a month.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:55 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
If your definition of ‘full Flash experience’ is what Flash experience is currently on Android devices, I think you have very low expectations.
And, if Apple was desperate, they would give in and start using Flash, not continue standing up against it.
For what it’s worth, I’m glad Adobe atleast tried.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:30 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
This is very disappointing, they are letting Apple win. I quite like flash on my touchpad personally. One of the reasons I use WebOS and not Apple.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Flash will still work on your TouchPad. Adobe just won’t be updating it anymore.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:55 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So the next time there is a security issue, it will remain unpatched.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think they’re committing to updating it with security patches. How long for, i don’t know…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow, Apple was right again.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:52 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
How is Apple right???
Not supporting Flash is stupid.
Android devices now have a fully hardware accelerated flash 11, there is no need to improve it other than eventual bug fixes or security fixes which Adobe promises to provide.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Adobe kills Flash in a flash…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
When I asked my brother-in-law how he liked his recent WP7 Mango update, he said it was great Except that it still doesn’t have Flash in the browser. Apparently, many sports related sites still use Flash to display information and in forms, etc.
not sure what I’m trying to say here, but had to add that to the discussion.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:07 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Was hoping they’d have made a slimmed down version before killing it. It was nice to have the option as there are still sites that insist on using it. This is their admission that they couldn’t make it work better. If that’s the case, this is the right decision. It works for me, but it’s not a consistent enough experience for me to miss it.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:12 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Though I saw this article earlier, I wanted to reread it to see the thoughts of Verge staffers vs articles from other groups I had just read. Except when I loaded the full article, I saw the broken puzzle piece Flash image and nearly passed out wondering why Flash wasn’t working. Okay, I exaggerate.
Must be the lateness of the night.
SighOn another note, Flash was on a stalling airplane. It was bound to crash eventually. The deal here is that since technology is moving down a more mobile device-focused route nowadays, this signals the fact that Flash really is going. It won’t be around too much longer, no matter how much anyone likes/dislikes the idea.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I seriously spent like 5 minutes checking my FlashBlock preferences and hovering over the image before noticing "MissionMan"’s comment (1st comment)
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:20 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Flash will be around for a long time yet, a lot of legacy code on websites that companies can’t afford to upgrade. Flash whether it gets new features or not will still get bugfix/security updates and will still be a big part of the Internet for another 5 years or more.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah. Apparently people still use GeoCities, too.
http://www.geocities.co.jp/
Japanese people anyway. They’re so cutting edge!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I thought I would use flash on my phone…..but the only thing I ever did with it was watch youtube videos and oh wait…it was always better to open those through the youtube app anyway. Hopefully this pushes even more websites to get rid of all flash.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So this could mean the end of Flash as we know it.
It cold also usher in a new era where Flash is no longer synonymous with ‘slow, old-fashioned and bloated’, instead being more of a native experience like one we expect to see in the 2010’s. Web apps exist in all sorts of formats that don’t run like a turtle, and have done so for at least long enough for me to remember a uTorrent web app. And flash is utterly unneccessary for Video, let’s be honest, any feature can be replicated in HTML5 in video. We shouldn’t let things like standards issues deter us from getting rid of Flash as we know it.
I also think Adobe could possibly make Flash ‘2.0’ a big hit for app development. If they manage to make it much less resource intensive and let it work in a much more native fashion. We’ll have to see, though.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
it was about time, i dont have flash in my mbp either, if i need to watch a video or two just copy and paste the link and use chrome, steve jobs was 100% right all the time.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
that remind me that old song
html5 video kill the video flash star, html5 video kill the video flash star….
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Thank You Steve Jobs for being a prophet and a big enough dick to do what’s necessary.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:02 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Android fanboys specs thumping chest argument just got flushed down the drain.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:03 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Good riddance. I remember back at school I was doing a course in Macromedia Flash and Director. This was around 1997 from memory. Anyway, we had a lab of latest high end super expensive Power Macintosh G3 Beige Desktops, they were about 300mhz from memory. I remember even then I could make the CPU max out with relatively simple animations, and make it go jumpy. I couldn’t understand how a simple animation would max out a beast of a machine like that when the system could play full 640×480 quicktime video files perfectly. Anyway, I understand why now, but as the world goes mobile, flash just eats battery cycles. iPad 2 plays full screen video for over 10 hours on a single charge. It would no way near do that if it were flash video. (e.g. MacBook Air gets half the battery life if flash content it viewed compared to non-flash) Anyway, we know all this, but it’s a good sign that Adobe is going to transition their software and make great other software instead.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:05 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
This was always primarily about the ads. Steve Jobs called them out by basically asking how does flash on a mobile device help our customers? We all benefit from his stance.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:06 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I guess it will continue to be a point of discussion wether Steve’s and Apple’s backing out of flash on mobile was a self fulfilling prophecy given the success of iOS.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Two years ago, Steve Jobs said “Flash sucks on mobile devices”. Adobe whined, screamed, bitched and moaned about it.
Today, Adobe just said “Flash sucks on mobile devices”.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:11 AM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
Now if only Adobe would discontinue development on personal computer Flash…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:12 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
do you actually believe what you say?
It’s very possible Adobe simply decided to stop development on mobile devices because they don’t have the resources to move at that pace; which is a lot more likely scenario seeing as how it takes them forever just to update to a new version. It just simply is costing them too much money for too little in return.
But if living in your own dream world makes you happy and you like to take a corporations enemy on as your own enemy, then I say good for you.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m saying flash sucks on everything, it would be awesome if it didn’t exist!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:55 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
First step: Denial.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
FLASH!…. nah-ah!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I love you but we only have 14 hours to save the….. internetz?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The right move on Adobes part. Heres to a standardised future!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:13 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
To be honest, I’m sick and tired of the calls to “KILL FLASH!”, “GO HTML5!” They are different technologies and for different purposes. Flash is still the leader in most things, while HTML5 is working better with videos and (very) simple animations.
I will admit that Flash has been overused. When some people use Flash as a header for their website, and for drop down menus, and stuff, that’s the technological equilivant of trying to crack a nut with a steamroller.
HTML5 is pretty powerful considering that it requires no plug-ins to run, but it suffers from different impletmentations from browsers. After all this time, we still need two tags to embed something into a webpage. We still can’t just do cursor: none because some browsers don’t support it. Basically, it’s still new and unfortunately very difficult for devs unless the browsers get their act together.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:18 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Not so much a steamroller to crack a nut just extreme laziness.
I got some quotes for website design for a company I did some work for last year and a lot of them had things like “Price includes level 1 Flash”. On questioning this was just Flash header, level 2 was menus, etc
Told them to go away and requote without Flash. Any who increased tjeir price got discarded.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:47 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thanks. I guess it’s because Flash is so convienient and easy to use. I can create a simple drop down header bar in Flash in about 10 minutes, while HTMl5 is a completely different story.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
While I don’t think that Flash was particularly useful on my phone, I will be sad to see it go. So many websites use Flash and don’t care about mobile browsing. I found it nice to have it load on demand. I don’t get why so many people are happy to see it go though. As a user, I am really glad I had the choice to use Flash. It wasn’t great… or good for that matter, but being able to use Flash if I really needed to was nice. People aren’t going to be migrating off of Flash any time soon, especially when there is such a difference between the execution on each browser (e.g. H.264 vs WebM). I’d be happy to migrate off of flash when HTML5 becomes standardized, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. Plus, sue me, I like playing Flash games.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is a troubling sign from Adobe. It’s basically admitting they can’t get their product to work well on a mobile platform that is/has been on par with low end computers. I’m not saying it was the most useful addition to Android, but it was nice to have when you needed it. It made a big difference for me on my tablet, and I rarely use the web on my phone anymore.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Has anyone said hallelujah yet? If not, Hallelujah! It’s about time… Outlived it’s usefulness really, especially for mobile.
And what truly surprises me is that they had to know this was the case while each of these mobile versions were in development. Why did they continue this long? Couldn’t admit defeat maybe? But if they had, they could have spent time on something more productive.
And they seriously need to refocus. They are most-certainly going to lose more market share in the editing business if they do not clean their tools up. Without bogging them down. Here’s hoping.
As someone said above, the core of their tools are still there, they just need to remove the layer upon layer of stuff that’s not needed.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:27 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Flash ads are too small on mobile screens to be properly viewed anyway and other flash content, you have to size it to fill the screen or tap the smaller hot spots, and there is no lock so the flash content won’t slide off screen by a mistake touch-slide. Forcing content providers to build flash apps instead means they have to buy more Adobe products right? And make a better game/app targeted at the smaller screen.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Adobe tried playing chicken with Apple and lost. When will these companies learn? Just follow Apple and you’ll be fine. They go with the current not against it.
Apple has had many such milestones. Killing floppy drives, integrating the battery, ignoring blu-ray, betting against Flash, putting all effort behind touch-only displays, not pursuing the netbook race to the bottom, et. al.
At every turn there were nerds and analysts who said each one of these things would “doom” the company. Eventually everyone does the same thing.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:30 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yeah we all hate Blu-ray. I would rather have low quality renting from iTunes… I invested in HDTVs and HD displays because I’m ok with low res video.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe you should invest in a computer that can play HD content or the bandwidth to download it. HD from iTunes (and many other on-line sources) works great on my gear.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think he is saying he wants 1080p over 720p. Apple will be switching to this soon most likely. They stuck with 720p because of the download speed for streaming. My guess is once they have iCloud for movies it will include the 1080p upgrade from the 720p content.
The down side to blu-ray is that its not as easy to take with you on your mobile device unless you have cracked the encryption on the disk and made a “questionably legal” digital copy. I opted for the convenience of a digital copy over the slightly higher resolution. For my eyes, 720p looks great.
Anyway if you have a television that is larger than 60 inches, then I can see the argument for 1080p — though some large-screen Samsung televisions make DVD’s in 420p look beautiful.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As a follow-up to my last comment, many Blu-Ray disks come with a free digital copy these days. But the free digital copy is usually 420p SD.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is this the end of Flash? As some of the commenters above have said, it’s served it’s purpose! But the age of HTML 5 is coming! I do think this is like lightning on a bright day. It feels only like only yesterday that adobe really defended it’s position of flash as the only “real web” experience. And now they are focusing on bringing the flash experience to consumers via the app stores. Guess this is a win for Apple?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:32 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well, this is a shock.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh man, can’t wait to get this android tablet! I doesn’t matter if it has a laggy UI, buggy apps, and a terrible battery life. It has flash, so it does what iDon’t!
What? Adobe’s discontinuing their flash plugin for android?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:38 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Flash was always kinda ugly
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:41 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
haha! funny
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
iPad 2 review, Cons:
Still doesn’t have flash.
Android review, Pros:
Supports Adobe’s popular Flash plugin that a certain fruit company wink wink doesn’t have.
Comical.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:58 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Have a great Christmas everyone… http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ov8FeODxyXU
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
‘Tis better to have Flash’d and lost, than to never have Flash’d at all.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:12 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m a little sad that the sheer spite didn’t keep Steve Jobs alive long enough to see this moment.
I just recently upgraded to a phone that’s Flash capable, and it only confirmed for me that there’s almost no situation in which that’s a significant benefit. Tapping to load a video is tantamount to signing an agreement in which I’ll be shown the 30 second video clip, at least the frames that don’t skip, in exchange for having to restart my web browser afterward.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:28 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
That’s too bad. I actually found that on newer generation devices, it ran quite smoothly and provided a lot of conveneience.
A lot fo the videos I find are perfectly fit for mobile flash are those short 15+ second videos that make so much more sense to just play from the browser than having to open up into a video app to play; because the “html5” implementation at the moment seems to keep throwing me out to an app, which is supremely annoying when the video doesn’t require that.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Every single website that is targeting desktop and mobile had to have fallback for iOS devices anyway as they just couldn’t ignore 100M+ potential customers. On the phone you maximize most videos anyway and on iPad you can play it right along the content in the browser just fine. As both use the same browser it is just design decision to play it in an app (or more likely just maximized as there is no app for vimeo for example).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So Steve has been right all along? What a blow t is for the Google infested phone owners.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:36 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
hahahaha. yay. Flash sucks
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The nail in the coffin was clearly Microsoft declaring that it wouldn’t be supported by Windows 8 on ARM. Now if it could please hurry up and die on the desktop that would be lovely.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:11 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
People saying things like “WOW! Apple was right!” are what most suprises me. Really? You are realizing that only now?
Flash was dead long before Steve Jobs ever talked about it.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Heavy android user, won’t miss flash for a second. Sorry to hear the job losses though.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:23 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Android will work on Android forever. If you don’t want Flash on Android you can just disable it in Browser setting.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I meant Flash will work on Android forever.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Uhm, your title is wrong. Adobe has finished making a fully hardware accelerated Flash for Android and QNX, they don’t need to bring Flash to any other platform, the future is Android and Flash now fully works on there.
And Adobe says " We will continue to support the current Android and PlayBook configurations with critical bug fixes and security updates." that is the exact opposite of what you write in the title.
Everyone knows HTML5 is the future, and with free WebM codec and GPU features for animations and more in the browser, Adobe is at the forefront of supporting that future. That does not change the fact that any company who wants to have a successful mobile OS and not support Flash is stupid. Apple is stupid.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
no software is ever “finished” if it isn’t moving forward it is dead or on life support at best
WP7 does not have flash, iOS does not have flash, W8 (ARM version) does not support flash, the list is getting longer and it is no longer viable to make flash as fundamental part of your sites, there are already 100 milion+ devices with access to the web with no support for flash (not just from apple, the older android phones or even last years ones where flash sucks balls and of course dumbphones)
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:55 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Windows Phone is dead. And iOS is dying. Who cares about supporting flash on those platforms, if they want Flash they can pay to make it work themselves. If Microsoft wants Flash on Windows8 they’ll pay for it. 250 million Android devices support Flash, within 2 years that will be 1 Billion devices to support Flash.
The whole concept that Google/Adobe lost the argument and Apple won it is just pure stupid.
Apple could support Flash now, they decide to remove that feature. That is not winning, that is moronic and stupid.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Literally everything you said is misinformed. I could write a thesis on it but there wouldn’t be a point.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:42 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Apple said at their iPhone 4S event that there are currently over 250 Million iOS devices (none of which support Flash).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Most websites have been ditching flash, or at least had an iOS fallback. It is rare to come across a website that doesn’t support iOS video.
Websites have had to move over, iOS has the majority share in mobile web usage.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:00 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Android tablets can run the full youtube.com website and stream 1080p flash video. iOS devices have a crappy limited low quality youtube access, how is that better?
Not supporting flash is stupid.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:02 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That is only because of a marketing/competitive decision by Google – not for technical reasons like the one Apple used in deciding not to put Flash on iOS devices. And, Google made that decision after first deciding that Apple was right and started converting their video to H.264. They decided to support Flash after releasing their Android phones and they realized that there was ad revenue they might lose if they didn’t support the dying technology of Flash. Plus, they needed something to put in the marketing brochures to differentiate themselves from the iPhone – even it it meant something that did not work.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As far as I can tell, I get full quality video on youtube as long as I have a WiFi connection.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
(On iPhone and iPad, I should have said).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s Google’s fault. Not the fault of the technology. The iPad can stream 1080p web video, it’s just, why would you want to? It doesn’t have a 1080p screen.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Flash is not just for displaying videos. If you go to a lot of fashion websites, they are still developped in Flash, and can’t be viewed on iOS devices.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This was not to be expected but is a good
And honest move. I just wish they had admitted early that flash isn’t for the mobile revolution.
Steve would have smiled.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:04 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Flash works fine, especially since the new Flash 11 on Android, why not support it? Sure HTML5 is the future, Adobe invests a lot in HTML5, not supporting Flash now is not a service to the user.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
it will just make the transition to html5 that much faster … and flash devs can still make nice money on apps for all the mobile devices – its win-win
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:46 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And you are happy with “works fine”? I’m sorry but fine is not good enough when we have HTML 5
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:34 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Works fine for video maybe on a sufficiently fast handset, but for other bits of Flash, it was very problematic.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This was pretty much inevitable I think. Flash has never worked properly on any mobile product. It works fairly well on Windows, but even on The Mac it has lackluster performance. After several years of trying to make it good it still doesn’t have the performance level to make it usable.
Hopefully this will let Adobe focus more on making HTML 5 tools like Muse better.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:45 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
FYI, Adobe Dreamweaver was among the first few to have official support for HTML5. They already knew that Flash was not the best idea on mobile platforms and that’s why we have Adobe Air today.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wish all Flash websites have updated to HTML5, but actually they have not. a lot of them have a limited iOS fallback.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is actually good news. Flash works ok on my Android phone and tablet, but it has never been super smooth. So if we can move to better things, i’m all up for that. I love the fact that I’ve been at least given the option to view flash content if I needed to and it has certainly come in useful many times in the past. But if we can all move to something that is supposed to be better, then I’m all up for that.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sadly, Flash is still going to be used by a lot of website for years, so I hope my next phones & tablets will have Flash just like my current phone and tablet.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It will be like ActiveX. The few websites, for some, may be necessary but it will be viewed as an ancient relic like geocities.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:03 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What I like about this news is that it puts an end to the lie that Flash works on mobile. The truth is that only Flash Video ran in acceptable form on mobile. Certainly having Flash video was an advantage over not having it, but let’s face it… HTML 5 can handle video pretty darn well, so the use of Flash solely for video was making our devices use more resources to handle a very basic task. Hopefully websites will transition to HTML 5 video using H.264 encoding.
I tried a very very basic Flash app on the Asus Transformer eee Pad a couple weeks ago. The app would not even load on my iPad, but it had a simple “browse” button to browse the file system and a “cancel” button to quit it. After you browse the file system, pick a file, the file uploads to the server with an indeterminate progress meter. I wanted to see how Android handled the “browse” with the Mobile Flash plugin. What I learned is that once the app loaded neither the “Browse” nor the “Cancel” button registered a touch event as a mouse click. I had what amounted to a JPEG image of what should have been a working app.
In a post on Adobe’s website ironically titled “The Truth About Flash” they claim:
The truth is that is not always the case. I’ve grown weary of hearing “my device runs Flash” when it should have always been “my device runs Flash video” since everything else was a crap shoot at best. In the end I think this is good for everybody except the developers who got laid off. I think websites will stop using Flash for stupid things that don’t need it and our devices will run more efficiently, more reliably, and with less battery than before.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:29 AM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Your comment post is better than many articles on lesser sites. Very nice to see somebody using facts and reason amidst the noise.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:02 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I can’t speak for every website the runs Flash, but the one site that I routinely go to that runs Flash is MotoGP.com. I go there to watch the races. The entire site, from the videos, to the menus, to… well, everything is Flash. This site was a no-go on my iPad. But being a die-hard MotoGP fan, I couldn’t NOT watch my races on the go. So, I ditched my iPad and picked up a HC Android tablet (GT10.1). I think it’s underselling the point when you say, “Having Flash video was an advantage over not having it.”
HTML5 may be able to handle some kinds of video, but if a site is not using HTML5, then it’s a non-argument. In that case, having Flash is more than just an advantage. It’s a huge deal-maker. It cannot be overlooked or understated. By having Flash, I could watch all my races in Hi-Res and even 720p when it was available. Beautiful running video quality. But it’s not just videos. I could navigate the entire site, getting in and out of menus where you say touch events don’t translate from mouse events. It does. And it just works.
Maybe the MotoGP site is the exception and not the norm. Again, I don’t profess to have visited EVERY Flash-enabled site. But I’ve gone to many restaurant sites, which still use Flash, and have pulled up menus, made reservations, etc. from my Android tablet. So, here we have two disparate experiences. You had a frustrating one and I have had a problem-free one. Which is true? Both. It ultimately depends on the site developer, right? Some sites are well supported, others are not.
My device, for the sites that I frequent, runs Flash, from video to menu navigation to even those pesky ads. You calling a “crap shoot” makes it seem that the vast majority of sites are faulty, but I wager you haven’t been those vast majority of Flash sites. Neither have I. But I do agree with your last point. I think that this signals a shift towards devices running more efficiently, although I always set my plug-ins to be “on demand”. But if you think website will stop using a platform for stupid things, you’re wrong.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:39 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Most Flash-only sites have an iOS app. The motoGP 2011 Live Timing App looks pretty good, and even lets you select which car to follow when watching video of a race (it selects the appropriate camera feeds). Was this app missing things that you needed?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So I clicked the “thumbs-up” on your post as well because I like your counter-point. This is what I have seen with Flash — either people get lucky or they hit an 80% rate of things that work versus do not (which is where I fall — probably better than a “crap shoot — more like black jack”). If only 80% of the apps I downloaded from the App Store worked, then I would declare that my iPhone/iPad does not work. To me 80% of the sites working would mean “alpha” code at best and 90% would bean “beta”. This was my problem with Mobile Flash — it never felt like a full-fledged release.
However, this does not mean I don’t frequent Flash sites on my iPad (especially with little kids), but I use iSwifter browser for them which runs the flash remotely and streams the video and audio to you — almost like using VNC, but integrated into a browser experience that uses iSwifter’s cloud servers on the back end. This works pretty well for things the kids want to go play with.
I have not visited every flash site either — but i typically get 1 in 5 failures to get a site working at all, and another 1 in 5 to have it work but non-optimally. I typically try these out on my brother-in-law’s Xoom or my mother-in-laws’s Asus eee Pad Transformer. Flash Video is a notable exception, which is probably close to 98% or 99% success rate. Mind you that Flash video makes up a large portion of how Flash is used on the web, so your point is well taken — I would however like to see web video transition to HTML 5 and H.264 so it is universal. There is very little value-add to video from Flash unless you are trying to insert commercials and prevent fast-forwarding of them.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Finally! This is the best tech news I’ve heard for ages.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:30 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
…so i guess apple was right
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:37 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I think the good news here is that Adobe is going to focusing on HTML5. This means better dev tools and broader acceptance of the standard.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:41 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Is Apple the cause or did they just see this coming?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A bit of both really. Apple’s stance spurred work on improving HTML-5 tools and up-take, but Flash’s flaws are real – and it was never suited to a world where web-browsing became mobile and touch based rather than desktop and mouse based.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:06 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There was nothing they could do but reject Flash. The original iPhone couldn’t handle Flash. Flash’s minimum requirements would’ve only been acceptable for the iPhone 4. Even then it didn’t perform well on Android devices with similar or superior specs. Jobs had even been on record saying that he told Adobe to show him a working version of Flash on mobile. They never got back to him.
This is a story of a company that was poorly run. When you see a disruptive device you adjust and do so quickly. Instead Adobe became defensive and acted as if Apple had a grudge against them. The moment Adobe saw the iphone they should’ve ditched Flash and gone full steam ahead on creating HTML5 tools.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:12 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Adobe should have ditched its proprietary platform and taken up something open-source? That’s like saying, Apple should have ditched iOS and taken up Android and gone full steam ahead when they saw Android having widespread adoption and market share. Apple did have a grudge against Adobe. They gave Adobe the big middle finger many a times. At first, theirs was a good relationship. Somewhere along the way it soured. Since then, it’s not ever been amicable, despite Adobe attempting to reach out and optimize the platform on Apple products. Show him a working version of Flash on mobile? According to you then, Jobs has never seen or used an Android device. Flash works for me and many others using it on Android mobile devices. Shoot, even the BB Playbook, from what I hear, is quite good.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Adobe is a tools company – or at least they were. Yes, they should have ditched the past for the future.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
Damn…steve was right.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:47 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I never understood the hate Flash gets. I never had a problem with it, and flash websites I visit tend to be beautifully designed.
In this case, if the mobile version didn’t work correctly (I never used it), then they’re right to kill it off.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There is a long story to this. The short version:
1.Flash served a purpose at the turn of the millennia. There were so many codecs that video and audio needed to have a standard.
2. Over time Flash added many other features that made web browsing slow and added annoying ads. It even managed to make high-end machines seem slow.
3. Since Adobe controlled the development it only worked decently on Windows. The Mac and Linux were left out in the cold. Something as important as video, audio and browsing should perform equally well across all platforms.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:21 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That last point is only half true. Adobe wanted to work with Apple to optimize Flash, but Apple gave them the big middle finger. Can’t blame Adobe for Apple being an unwilling participant. As for Linux, the issues that exist are not as egregious as they are for the Mac as you make it out to be. Flash would/could work well across all platforms (really, it’s just the one that’s the most problematic) if there were a beneficial partnership.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Adobe only wanted to work with Apple after Apple made the decision to ditch Flash because it wasn’t working (it didn’t hurt that the iOS devices were selling like hotcakes and there were no Flash ads on them). And, yes, I can blame Adobe. Apple and company went to Adobe several times to ask them to develop applications for the Mac – and Adobe gave them the big middle finger. So Apple decided to build their own stuff and to build in technologies where third parties could offer new competition to Adobe products.
Adobe was founded on the Mac. Then they gave them the “big middle finger” and went whole hog for Windows. Now they are reaping what they sow. Maybe they’ll wake up and become a great tools company for creative professionals again, but I doubt it.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Adobe wanted direct access to the hardware (and this was only after the iOS vs Flash war started) however Apple doesn’t give anything direct access to hardware let alone an app that has a history of being full of security vulnerabilities. Once the discussion came up Apple did develop a set of API’s that Adobe was able to use to gain better performance. I believe you have your chickens and eggs mixed up.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Me neither. Flash works across all my PCs and Android devices. I don’t have a single issue with Flash. Flash works great, without problem, on my Android mobile device, so them killing it off is strange to me. But I suppose they realize where the industry is headed.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If they’re killing mobile flash, they’re killing flash all together. The question is whether webM is ready for prime time.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
WebM is DOA. Google is facing the same situation as Adobe. MS and Apple will not support it and there is a belief that WebM infringes on patents by MPEG-LA. You’re asking for OEM’s to fight this when they’re already kicking money up to MS because of Android and others that already in litigation with Apple.
Two-thirds of the web is already using h.264. While Google may have an advantage with YouTube, even they are forced to use h.264 because of iOS and WP7.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:30 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There still is the problem of h.264 not being free in the future. We would be blinking idiots to accept the H.264 ‘free until ubiquitous’ model without questioning the motive behind it.
Beliefs never did anyone any good, nor should they be used to decide issues greater than what colour socks to wear. To integrate a heavily patented technology into an otherwise open web is regression. Never mind what mom and pop MS and Apple want; tell me what YOU want. It still matters whilst the web is free!
Posted on Nov 21, 2011 | 12:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why WebM? Microsoft and Apple both have H.264 codecs built into the operating system. Linux has FFMPEG and MPlayer that supply codecs over there. Flash videos are already encoded using H.264. It is just a matter of switching containers for the video and everything continues to works with just a few tweaks to the HTML.
The only real holdup is Firefox refusing to drop to the OS and let it do its job. For some reason it believes that it needs to write its on codecs, introducing bloated code that inevitably leads to memory leaks and security vulnerabilities.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
boom. gone in a FLASH.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:03 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
ZING
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It never really worked that well in the first place.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I beg to differ. It works fantastic on my device. In fact, because of the Flash content that I need to get, it’s the major reason I returned my iPad. Can’t watch my races on a non-Flash device. But since having Flash, I haven’t missed a race and it’s not ever failed me with a jitter, stutter or otherwise.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There was more to Flash than Flash video – the video worked, the rest mostly did not. It’s trivially easy for Flash video to be converted to H.264, there’s really no excuse for content providers insisting on it.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:14 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Have you used the MotoGP app on iOS to watch your races?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Flash worked great for streaming video and looking at sports live scoring sites on the playbook. I hope HTML5 solutions for that and for casual games become practical.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:19 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that’s into tech. I’m surprised it didn’t happen sooner.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A bit surprising- even though they’re not going to update it anymore, there are still (and always will be) a massive amount of Flash resources on the web that iOS won’t be able to access
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This happens. I hope this speeds the adoption of HTML5. I have to admit though, Apple was right on this one. I wonder how this will affect Adobe’s flash product?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As it stands, Flash 11 works great on mobile. So, as long as they continue to release bug fixes and patches to keep it safe, I don’t really care that there won’t be a Flash 12 or whatever. The writing was on the wall for Flash, but with so many sites still using Flash, I can’t do without it. Can’t watch my MotoGP races on my mobile without Flash. So, sad, but not too sad.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I never agreed with Apple when they said Flash didn’t belong on a mobile device because the experience sucked. It still frustrates me when I can’t watch certain videos on my iPad. However after using the flash player on my Android phone it does kind of suck. I mean it works but just barely. Hopefully this will force web devs to make HTML5 the new standard for multimedia designs. Although I wonder if the crappy restaurant websites around the world will get this memo?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This wasn’t entirely surprising. The Android Flash plugin is based on the Linux one, and the Linux one is just awful. Yes, it’s worse than the OS X one. I figured this could be coming when they announced AIR would no longer be supported on Linux, but I also thought they’d be too proud to effectively cave to Apple.
And, by the way, all the people who claim Flash is flawless on Android, load up some non-video content like Homestar Runner sometime. It was a horror show on my original Evo – wouldn’t scale to fit the screen, ran slowly, and was nearly impossible to control since it assumed a mouse.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Admit it, Apple fans, how many of you came silently at this news?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh it wasn’t silent.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah… I definitely laughed hysterically…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But… but… JUST ONE MORE VERSION! It will be so much faster and better!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Comme on , seriously! Apple Wins? OK, now I´m be focusly on HCJ (HTML5, CSS3, Javascript) programming
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So flash will still be on Andriod etc. they just wont be developing it anymore? The article says they will fix bugs and security right? Sounds like it will be there until HTLM5 takes off.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe when they’re done basking in their victory, Apple can make it so I can visit http;//trailers.apple.com with QuickTime disabled. After all, HTML5 is awesome, right?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The video trailers are H.264 which is part of HTML5.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, but viewing the trailers still requires installation of a plugin for the majority of computer users. Shouldn’t we be moving away from that?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think the issue here is that mp4 currently only supports stereo audio, and so a plugin is needed to support multichannel audio (surround sound). I assume Apple is working to get that added to the mp4 standard.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Talk about a big slice of humble pie…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
To be honest, we all saw this coming. Flash on mobile devices is simply not viable. In a world where battery and resources are precious, there is not point to meander it away on a buggy resource-hog of a program that offers little to know advantages on the standards integrated into our browsers.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This changes everything!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Haha, nice photo in the post.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
When if ever will people give-in and buy an iPhone? It is far-and-away the best option.
You can say that’s my option, yes – but more and more it’s being backed by imperial evidence.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I am compelled to steep myself into the pool of vindicated schadenfreude, with an emphatic, HA!
Seriously though, Adobe used to be a such good company; before they acquired Macromedia. Several of their applications (E.G. Photoshop, Illustrator) are still the tools for productive imaging work, but they have grown bloated and gimped in order to foster – what used to be – needles purchase of additional products in their excessively exorbitant software line.
These days, I think of Adobe in the same – unfortunate – vein as I do Microsoft. It is a company to which hubris and mediocrity are their perpetual drive. Their infantile bolstering about Flash was simply the most notable exemplification of this; of a company that has passed it’s greatest years.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Agreed. Postscript was many years ahead of its time but that kind of powerful simplicity has been sadly lacking in Adobe recently.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is exactly why Apple pushed for HTML5 instead of Flash. Thankfully, this makes it so that this has little to no affect on mobile browsing.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:59 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
“erhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.”
Steve Jobs
April, 2010
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:24 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“This certainly looks like a sign that Apple has won the battle over whether Flash belongs on mobile devices”
No. Apple saw it wasnt going to work and acted on it. Almost everybody else has been in denial for almost five years.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
We knew it was coming, it was only a matter of time but no matter. Android devices already fully support HTML 5.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yet another example of Steve Jobs seeing the light before others. RIP S J
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:31 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
While it’s simply amazing how much foresight Steve Jobs had during this whole issue, it didn’t take a genius to recognize that Flash ran very, very poorly on mobile devices. I’ve personally owned and operated a Palm Pre 2, an HP TouchPad, and an EVO 4G and Flash was disappointing on all three. Interestingly enough it was better on the two WebOS offerings then it was on the EVO, but that may be given to some of Android’s weaknesses.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hey !! that’s great. who needs Flash anyways ? It’s not like the VergeCast is broadcasted with a Flash only service, huh ? ;-p
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 4:32 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
…and the truth remains that my girlfriend still puts down her iPad to get her laptop because she can’t see a fashion designer’s website on her iPad. so yes, we all agree, Flash will disappear slowly like floppy drives, and soon optical drives, but the problem is that Flash is still here today and we hope for not long but it is. so either you need it, or you don’t, but don’t pretend you don’t need it when you see some Flash content on a website and you can’t access it.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 4:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Thank you Steve Jobs.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 8:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That was pretty dumb of Adobe in my opinion. Developing it for 3 years and speaking of it on every corner and then like “No, it wasn’t us”.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 3:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed