Michelle

Flash for mobile devices just ain't there.

<http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/20/flash-player-performance-on-droid-2-found-to-be-hit-or-miss-at-best/>

--
Sent from my iPhone

I See

Michelle wrote:
> Flash for mobile devices just ain't there.
>
> <http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/20/flash-player-performance-on-droid-2-found-to-be-hit-or-miss-at-best/>


You're Steve Jobs, and ICMFP !

John B. Coarsey, PE

"I See" <mouchie@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:8df1ocFqjuU1@mid.individual.net...
> Michelle wrote:
>> Flash for mobile devices just ain't there.
>>
>> <http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/20/flash-player-performance-on-droid-2-found-to-be-hit-or-miss-at-best/>
>
>
> You're Steve Jobs, and ICMFP !

and just what would you be???

I See

> "I See" <mouchie@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:8df1ocFqjuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Michelle wrote:
>>> Flash for mobile devices just ain't there.
>>>
>>> <http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/20/flash-player-performance-on-droid-2-found-to-be-hit-or-miss-at-best/>
>>
>>
>> You're Steve Jobs, and ICMFP !
>
> and just what would you be???

"What" ?

You think I'm a word-bot ?

John B. Coarsey, PE

"I See" <mouchie@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:8df78aFruvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "I See" <mouchie@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:8df1ocFqjuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Michelle wrote:
>>>> Flash for mobile devices just ain't there.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/20/flash-player-performance-on-droid-2-found-to-be-hit-or-miss-at-best/>
>>>
>>>
>>> You're Steve Jobs, and ICMFP !
>>
>> and just what would you be???
>
> "What" ?
>
> You think I'm a word-bot ?


No, just a whimsical question. Peace.

Your Name

"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.

Todd Allcock

"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.

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 industry doesn't
say "mobile browsing sucks," and leave browsers off of mobiles. Instead,
they attempt to make the experience as good as possible given the
constraints of the technology, and users can decide what websites to visit
or not bother with accordingly.

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.

I See

Todd Allcock 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.
> 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

Not if you're JB'n - or even if you use Mercury browser (available in
iTunes) which has a toggle to enable the full desktop web experience.


- the
> industry doesn't say "mobile browsing sucks," and leave browsers off
> of mobiles. Instead, they attempt to make the experience as good as
> possible given the constraints of the technology, and users can
> decide what websites to visit or not bother with accordingly.
>
> 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.

BreadWithSpam@fractious.net

"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.

> 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.

> 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).

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).

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.

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

Your Name

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.

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. :-\

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