You're able to disable Flash on Android by default and only load it on a site when you approve it. It doesn't 'ruin' anything at all, because you'll never be using it unless there's Flash content you want to view.
Having content on the web that's unviewable to a device does more to ruin the experience than a performance hit while doing something CPU-intensive.
Also, from what I've read, this beta of Flash doesn't make use of any hardware acceleration, while the final release will.
Not to mention you have to download the flash player from the market if you wish to play flash (at least I did when i updated my nexus one), so it doesn't even come on the device by default as far as I know.
Sorry, but this is the most unprofessional comparison i have ever seen.
First, out of three mobiles only one supports flash and that one loads a site 1 sec slower?
Second, Ads are served from different servers and it's quite common that ads are served slow.. i have browsed the mainpage with a whopping 3 flash ads and waited like 5 seconds for the flash ads to be displayed after the whole rest of the page was there.. on my desktop!
Third, 3 devices in a speedtest fighting over one wifi connection on the same channel for bandwidth? Really?
Please, for the sake of god, if you do comparisons and benchmarks, do them right! That the whole web is linking this video is awful.
My personal experience with flash:
One site gave browser crashes (flashgames). The rest of the world played nicely so far, with good performance, surprisingly good, actually. And for a beta release, i hope this one site will play on release.
edit:
pocketnow.com copied locally, served form local network, one device at a time, stopwatch. It's not that hard... If you ignore the fact that you are comparing browsers without flash to browsers with flash.. that's stupid. He should've added lynx to it.
Did any of you catch the comment where the guy from Adobe criticized the guy in the video for picking random sites?
Seriously?
So, Flash runs great on the Android as long as you only visit the sites that Adobe hand-picked for the Google IO demo? Maybe I'm reading that wrong... but that's how it sounds.
Yes, it's beta. But don't hold your breath while you wait for it to improve. Flash is a big part of the web, and an expensive one too. Computers need to be fast to run today's Flash content. My netbook (windows) can't run Flash-based sites, neither can my Mac... so I don;t think we can just blame Apple for not letting Adobe optimize Flash.
I don't think we need to blame anyone.
The fact is that Adobe makes software that requires serious hardware to run. I am very skeptical that it will run well on low powered devices. If it does, it may only do so on "approved" sites which really isn't "choice" as far as I'm concerned.
Right on all points: Adobe's mistake isn't that they think Flash applications CAN run on these devices, as clearly this is definitely viable, but that they think Flash applications (which are designed for desktops) SHOULD run on these devices. It's a classic case of "just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD."
The guy from adobe also says that he's using an old build that is not hardware accelerated:
> He used the non-hardware-accelerated preview on random sites which may or may not have ever tested their behavior in a small device. Most of it seemed to devolve to “Hey, if I don’t load interactivity or video, then pages load faster!” Even that didn’t control for browser-caching.
The video only proves that loading additional content takes additional time. Turn off the images, and the loading will be even faster. Turn off javascript and performance will be even better! News?
Being able to play web games on mobile, is really a cool thing. Turn on the 'on-demand' mode and Flash wont load/play content by default.Compared to how poorly iphone handles even basic javascript effects, the flash experience on Android is excellent.
It's something more fundamental. When writing software for mobile devices, you really need to optimize for power consumption. There was a recent talk at Google IO about the new polling vs pushing for web services, and it's alarming. If your Android app polls a web service every 5 minutes, it'll use something like 10% of the battery in one day (just that one app!).
Flash apps are simply not designed for optimal power consumption. Flash is designed for multimedia apps, which are generally power hogs.
I develop Flash professionally, and I'd never run it on my phone.
Flash is useful for video everywhere but Youtube. And it works. But for ads etc., it's best turned off.
Android is better and more useful for having Flash than not. But plugin support in the browser should be made on-demand, or turned on and off as desired.
It is. You can select to run plugins only on demand, which naturally is the only sensible way to run flash. This whole "claim" is completely silly.
Even on the desktop (ie OS X) the web becomes unusable with Flash enabled all the time. There are plugins like NoFlash that make it acceptable, and the occasional interesting Flash app makes it worthwhile.
YouTube... or Vimeo, Veoh, College Humor, DailyMotion, CNN, Reuters, NYT, ESPN, NPR, TED, WSJ, ABC, CBS, Fox, and many other sites that support HTML5 video (see http://www.apple.com/ipad/ready-for-ipad/ for the iPhone/iPad compatible ones)
The only site I personally miss is Hulu, which I hear doesn't work on Android's Flash player anyway.
What's not mentioned is how extremely well the iPhone and iPad handle embedded HTML5 video; smooth scrolling and zooming, plus hardware decoding. If Google had also decided to only support HTML5 video that would only accelerate what is already rather quick adoption of that standard, and everybody would win. Instead they're relying on Adobe to deliver Android's video, and the results are predicably bad. But it's a bullet point they can add to their new anti-Apple marketing strategy, and I guess that's more important than the actual quality of the software they ship.
[+] [-] anticitizen|16 years ago|reply
Having content on the web that's unviewable to a device does more to ruin the experience than a performance hit while doing something CPU-intensive.
Also, from what I've read, this beta of Flash doesn't make use of any hardware acceleration, while the final release will.
[+] [-] abronte|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buster|16 years ago|reply
Sorry, but this is the most unprofessional comparison i have ever seen.
First, out of three mobiles only one supports flash and that one loads a site 1 sec slower?
Second, Ads are served from different servers and it's quite common that ads are served slow.. i have browsed the mainpage with a whopping 3 flash ads and waited like 5 seconds for the flash ads to be displayed after the whole rest of the page was there.. on my desktop!
Third, 3 devices in a speedtest fighting over one wifi connection on the same channel for bandwidth? Really?
Please, for the sake of god, if you do comparisons and benchmarks, do them right! That the whole web is linking this video is awful.
My personal experience with flash: One site gave browser crashes (flashgames). The rest of the world played nicely so far, with good performance, surprisingly good, actually. And for a beta release, i hope this one site will play on release.
Again.. please don't do this.
Worst. Benchmark. EVER.
[+] [-] buster|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bphogan|16 years ago|reply
Seriously?
So, Flash runs great on the Android as long as you only visit the sites that Adobe hand-picked for the Google IO demo? Maybe I'm reading that wrong... but that's how it sounds.
Yes, it's beta. But don't hold your breath while you wait for it to improve. Flash is a big part of the web, and an expensive one too. Computers need to be fast to run today's Flash content. My netbook (windows) can't run Flash-based sites, neither can my Mac... so I don;t think we can just blame Apple for not letting Adobe optimize Flash.
I don't think we need to blame anyone.
The fact is that Adobe makes software that requires serious hardware to run. I am very skeptical that it will run well on low powered devices. If it does, it may only do so on "approved" sites which really isn't "choice" as far as I'm concerned.
[+] [-] rbranson|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] papachito|16 years ago|reply
> He used the non-hardware-accelerated preview on random sites which may or may not have ever tested their behavior in a small device. Most of it seemed to devolve to “Hey, if I don’t load interactivity or video, then pages load faster!” Even that didn’t control for browser-caching.
[+] [-] Mgreen|16 years ago|reply
Being able to play web games on mobile, is really a cool thing. Turn on the 'on-demand' mode and Flash wont load/play content by default.Compared to how poorly iphone handles even basic javascript effects, the flash experience on Android is excellent.
[+] [-] jrockway|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesbritt|16 years ago|reply
Unheard of.
[+] [-] marketer|16 years ago|reply
Flash apps are simply not designed for optimal power consumption. Flash is designed for multimedia apps, which are generally power hogs.
I develop Flash professionally, and I'd never run it on my phone.
[+] [-] barrkel|16 years ago|reply
Android is better and more useful for having Flash than not. But plugin support in the browser should be made on-demand, or turned on and off as desired.
[+] [-] Tichy|16 years ago|reply
Even on the desktop (ie OS X) the web becomes unusable with Flash enabled all the time. There are plugins like NoFlash that make it acceptable, and the occasional interesting Flash app makes it worthwhile.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|16 years ago|reply
The only site I personally miss is Hulu, which I hear doesn't work on Android's Flash player anyway.
[+] [-] yason|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrischen2|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thought_alarm|16 years ago|reply
What's not mentioned is how extremely well the iPhone and iPad handle embedded HTML5 video; smooth scrolling and zooming, plus hardware decoding. If Google had also decided to only support HTML5 video that would only accelerate what is already rather quick adoption of that standard, and everybody would win. Instead they're relying on Adobe to deliver Android's video, and the results are predicably bad. But it's a bullet point they can add to their new anti-Apple marketing strategy, and I guess that's more important than the actual quality of the software they ship.