Jolly Roger

In article <rfDco.2819$8A2.2041@newsfe22.iad>,
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:i4unjk$5hp$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > "Michelle" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> > news:1209477548304252266.825127michelle-michelle.org@news.eternal-september.
> > org...
> >> Flash for mobile devices just ain't there.
> >>
> >>
> > <http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/20/...on-droid-2-fou
> > nd-to-be-hit-or-miss-at-best/>
> >
> >
> > Yep, I posted that one a few days ago. :-)
> >
> > Flash has always "sucked", even on desktop computers it can be slow and
> > resource hungry, and many developers hate using it. Of course, morons like
> > Loser Larry are not going to believe a word of it anyway.
>
> The issue is still content. Until the world's Flash content is replaced
> with something better, "bad" flash is better than no flash. The user can
> decide whether putting up with the performance issues is worth it.

It doesn't matter anymore. The battle is lost for Adobe. Flash, like it
or not, will remain largely irrelevant for mobile devices. And that's as
it should be.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Todd Allcock

At 24 Aug 2010 13:16:26 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> In article <rfDco.2819$8A2.2041@newsfe22.iad>, "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> > news:i4unjk$5hp$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > > "Michelle" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> > > news:1209477548304252266.825127michelle-michelle.org@news.eternal-
september.
> > > org...
> > >
> > >> Flash for mobile devices just ain't there.
> > >
> > > <http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/20/...erformance-on-
droid-2-fou
> > > nd-to-be-hit-or-miss-at-best/>
> > >
> > > Yep, I posted that one a few days ago. :-)
> > >
> > > Flash has always "sucked", even on desktop computers it can be slow
and
> > > resource hungry, and many developers hate using it. Of course,
morons like
> > > Loser Larry are not going to believe a word of it anyway.
> >
> > The issue is still content. Until the world's Flash content is
replaced
> > with something better, "bad" flash is better than no flash. The user
can
> > decide whether putting up with the performance issues is worth it.
>
> Nope. No Flash is definitely the better option ... especially for those
of
> us on computer dial-up connections or with data limited bradband /
mobile
> plans. :-\


In those scenarios you could just as easily substitute "no video" for "no
flash."


> Flash is far too often used like "eye candy" in movies and TV shows, to
> patch over a bad or boring idea.


Perhaps, but for most people, "Flash" = "Flash video."

Todd Allcock

At 24 Aug 2010 13:16:26 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> In article <rfDco.2819$8A2.2041@newsfe22.iad>, "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> > news:i4unjk$5hp$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > > "Michelle" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> > > news:1209477548304252266.825127michelle-michelle.org@news.eternal-
september.
> > > org...
> > >
> > >> Flash for mobile devices just ain't there.
> > >
> > > <http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/20/...erformance-on-
droid-2-fou
> > > nd-to-be-hit-or-miss-at-best/>
> > >
> > > Yep, I posted that one a few days ago. :-)
> > >
> > > Flash has always "sucked", even on desktop computers it can be slow
and
> > > resource hungry, and many developers hate using it. Of course,
morons like
> > > Loser Larry are not going to believe a word of it anyway.
> >
> > The issue is still content. Until the world's Flash content is
replaced
> > with something better, "bad" flash is better than no flash. The user
can
> > decide whether putting up with the performance issues is worth it.
>
> Nope. No Flash is definitely the better option ... especially for those
of
> us on computer dial-up connections or with data limited bradband /
mobile
> plans. :-\


In those scenarios you could just as easily substitute "no video" for "no
flash."


> Flash is far too often used like "eye candy" in movies and TV shows, to
> patch over a bad or boring idea.


Perhaps, but for most people, "Flash" = "Flash video."

Todd Allcock

At 23 Aug 2010 21:06:00 -0400 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>
> > The issue is still content. Until the world's Flash content is
> > replaced with something better, "bad" flash is better than no flash.
> > The user can decide whether putting up with the performance issues is
> > worth it.
>
> It's not quite as simple as that. If nobody pushed it, content would
> remain in sucky media like Flash.
>
> Until Apple, nobody had the strength to push back.

This reminds me of Apple "pushing back" against file-centric computing
with iOS. The pushed bacjk without a viable alternative in place, and
three years later, they're kludging it in with iTunes file sync and
sending copies of files between apps.

Apple can push all they like, but there's currently no real viable
alternative for protected content.


> > A silly analogy is mobile browsing. Even with a good mobile browser
> > like the iPhone's Safari, the experience is subpar compared to a real
> > computer. But we put up with it to have mobile access to the web- the
>
> Nevertheless, folks have been making websites specialized for mobile
> browsing since long before the iPhone. Content providers realized that
> there was a big audience they could cater to. They'll do the same when
> they realize that they have a big audience who don't want or use Flash.
> They already are. YouTube was a great first step, but more content
> providers are stepping up on a regular basis.

It's easy for YouTube to eschew flash- their content is crap uploaded by
users mixed with ads and movie trailers, but a lot of Flash video is DRM'd.




> > Why should that concept change with Flash? If the Android Flash
> > player can render, say, even 30 or 40% of the Flash content out there
> > acceptably well, that justifies its existence, since it's that much
> > more content it can access that other devices can't.
>
> It's not as simple as you want it to be. Apple made the calculated
> guess that Flash on the iPhone would suck so badly - and badly impact
> the overall user experience on the iPhone - they calculated that there
> was enough strength in the iPhone/iPad market to push back against
> Flash. And it looks like they were right - to everyone's benefit
> (except, perhaps Adobe's).

I'm still seeing a lot of Flash out there...


> Apple similarly made some calculations about the demise of the 3-1/2
> disk and some folks whined and complained - but the software makers got
> the message and started shipping software on CDs (the ones who hadn't
> already been doing so, at least).


Another good analogy- Apple was probably too early there as well!

The floppy's days were numbered already- apps and games were already
bloating to the point that CDs simply made more sense both economically
and for usability, than putting 15-20 floppies in a box. Today's
software is transitioning from CDs to DVDs, without Apple's "help."

> If folks want Flash so badly that they'll put up with
> a crappy
> experience to the extent that it starts really hurting Apple, they may
> try to backpedal on it. But so far, all indications are that Apple was
> right about this.


As mobile devices continue to mature, both in CPU/graphic power and
battery life, this will become a non-issue., most likely long before
Flash disappears.

BreadWithSpam@fractious.net

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
> At 23 Aug 2010 21:06:00 -0400 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
>> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>>
>> > The issue is still content. Until the world's Flash content is
>>
>> It's not quite as simple as that. If nobody pushed it, content would
>> remain in sucky media like Flash.

> This reminds me of Apple "pushing back" against file-centric computing
> with iOS. The pushed bacjk without a viable alternative in place, and

You're right - they've so far not really made a huge dent with their
app-centric view.

But you're wrong with respect to Flash. There are perfectly viable
alternatives and those alternatives are working and becoming more
widespread. There are specialized apps (ie. Netflix) and there is
HTML5. Both are doing their jobs and millions of folks are happily
iOSing away without Flash.

> Apple can push all they like, but there's currently no real viable
> alternative for protected content.

Um, see that paragraph up there?

> I'm still seeing a lot of Flash out there...

You sure are. But you're also seeing the alternatives more and more
often. And now the notable low opinion of even the latest mobile
flash. Face it. Flash has seen its day come and go.

>> Apple similarly made some calculations about the demise of the 3-1/2
>> disk and some folks whined and complained - but the software makers got

> Another good analogy- Apple was probably too early there as well!

Not at all. It was amazingly successful.

> The floppy's days were numbered already- apps and games were already
> bloating to the point that CDs simply made more sense both economically
> and for usability, than putting 15-20 floppies in a box. Today's
> software is transitioning from CDs to DVDs, without Apple's "help."

Flash is similarly no longer sensible. Folks are transitioning to
non-Flash alternatives even outside of Apple. But Apple's help is
more than welcome by an enormous number of us who have had such
terrible experiences with Flash.

> As mobile devices continue to mature, both in CPU/graphic power and
> battery life, this will become a non-issue., most likely long before
> Flash disappears.

Good luck with that.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.

Your Name

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:73Ico.32$LL1.8@newsfe24.iad...
> At 24 Aug 2010 13:16:26 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> >
> > Flash is far too often used like "eye candy" in movies and TV shows, to
> > patch over a bad or boring idea.
>
> Perhaps, but for most people, "Flash" = "Flash video."

Flash video is even worse than straight Flash animated content. If you're
going to use garbage video fomats then you've got plenty of others to choose
from - RealPlayer and Windoze Muddier Format for example.

Todd Allcock

<BreadWithSpam@fractious.net> wrote in message
news:yob8w3wsj3p.fsf@panix3.panix.com...
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>> At 23 Aug 2010 21:06:00 -0400 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
>>> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > The issue is still content. Until the world's Flash content is
>>>
>>> It's not quite as simple as that. If nobody pushed it, content would
>>> remain in sucky media like Flash.
>
>> This reminds me of Apple "pushing back" against file-centric computing
>> with iOS. The pushed bacjk without a viable alternative in place, and
>
> You're right - they've so far not really made a huge dent with their
> app-centric view.
>
> But you're wrong with respect to Flash. There are perfectly viable
> alternatives and those alternatives are working and becoming more
> widespread. There are specialized apps (ie. Netflix) and there is
> HTML5. Both are doing their jobs and millions of folks are happily
> iOSing away without Flash.

Happily iOSing away with a fraction of the content, you mean. Specialized
apps are ok as far as they go, but that doesn't "eliminate Flash" -it just
creates a subset of content available on a mobile platform, like WAP/mobile
web pages do, because we aren't using "specialized apps" on the desktop-
we're using browser plug-ins like Flash. (And to be fair, I don't think
Netflix ever used flash, they use Silverlight.) The much heralded HTML5,
AFAIK, still has no DRM solution, so it won't be replacing Flash for
commercial video (e.g. television network websites, etc.) anytime soon-
there'll have to be (Yet Another) App For That.

>> Apple can push all they like, but there's currently no real viable
>> alternative for protected content.
>
> Um, see that paragraph up there?

The one that mentions "specialized apps and HTML5?" Yeah, I see it. How
many apps does your device hold? There are a lot of flash-based sites out
there?

The "app" solution, again, will "fix" the problem of not having a flash
player on iOS devices, but it doesn't rid the world of flash- since those
"specialized apps" only run on one platform. If a content provider has to
scramble and customize solutions for mobile platforms there's little
incentive to replace Flash for desktop use. What could/would "kill" flash
is a single implementation that ALL devices, both desktop and mobile could
use, that would allow content providers to serve everyone with a single
format, and although HTML5 may be the best candidate on the horizon, it
really isn't finished yet (DRM?)


>> I'm still seeing a lot of Flash out there...
>
> You sure are. But you're also seeing the alternatives more and more
> often. And now the notable low opinion of even the latest mobile
> flash. Face it. Flash has seen its day come and go.
>
>>> Apple similarly made some calculations about the demise of the 3-1/2
>>> disk and some folks whined and complained - but the software makers got
>
>> Another good analogy- Apple was probably too early there as well!
>
> Not at all. It was amazingly successful.

Apple didn't kill the 3.5" disk. It was already gasping for air. The only
question is whether Apple ended support prematurely. Look at the Windows
side of the fence- 3.5" floppy drives stuck around far too long on most PCs
sold, yet Windows software distribution converted to optical discs as well.


>> The floppy's days were numbered already- apps and games were already
>> bloating to the point that CDs simply made more sense both economically
>> and for usability, than putting 15-20 floppies in a box. Today's
>> software is transitioning from CDs to DVDs, without Apple's "help."
>
> Flash is similarly no longer sensible. Folks are transitioning to
> non-Flash alternatives even outside of Apple. But Apple's help is
> more than welcome by an enormous number of us who have had such
> terrible experiences with Flash.

Meaning developers, or Mac OS users?

>> As mobile devices continue to mature, both in CPU/graphic power and
>> battery life, this will become a non-issue., most likely long before
>> Flash disappears.
>
> Good luck with that.

Adobe has some incentive to make it work- the future of Flash might depend
on it!

SMS

On 23/08/10 9:57 PM, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> Todd Allcock<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>> At 23 Aug 2010 21:06:00 -0400 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
>>> "Todd Allcock"<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The issue is still content. Until the world's Flash content is
>>>
>>> It's not quite as simple as that. If nobody pushed it, content would
>>> remain in sucky media like Flash.
>
>> This reminds me of Apple "pushing back" against file-centric computing
>> with iOS. The pushed bacjk without a viable alternative in place, and
>
> You're right - they've so far not really made a huge dent with their
> app-centric view.
>
> But you're wrong with respect to Flash. There are perfectly viable
> alternatives and those alternatives are working and becoming more
> widespread.

The bottom line is that without Flash you are unable to access a large
percentage of web content. The reasons for not offering Flash are
legitimate--it's a battery and CPU hog.

Sythos

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:14:11 -0500
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > The issue is still content. Until the world's Flash content is
> > replaced with something better, "bad" flash is better than no
> > flash. The user can decide whether putting up with the performance
> > issues is worth it.
>
> It doesn't matter anymore. The battle is lost for Adobe. Flash, like
> it or not, will remain largely irrelevant for mobile devices. And
> that's as it should be.

flash game on a HTC device (HD2) drain battery in 1h, a flash
compatible software player (gnash) and a game from miniclip.comn on a
JB 3GS iphone drain battery like a 3D game (1,5H more or less) [if my
clock don't lie, i've not taken sharpe time with a chrono), i think this
is the real reason why Flash isn't good for a movable device,
from Abode or from another source, due some architetture of Fl
ash than use a lot of CPU (obviously, a lot can say the shorter life of
a device is a fault of software, but i bet a lot give the cause to
manufacturer of device for "poor" battery capacity)

ajax, html5, WebGL and other existing tools can supply widely in a lot
of applications, just need a browser capable and a OpenGL ES (or more)
driver on device

*imho*

Larry

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4c73f975$0$22174
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> The bottom line is that without Flash you are unable to access a large
> percentage of web content.

.....and if every Apple customer never accessed Flash again, noone would
really care......

This delusion that the world cares so much for Apple fans is truly
laughable.