Click to Flash is the ideal middle ground for mobile devices. Only load the Flash when the user explicitly requests. 90% of the time, the user won't notice the Flash missing, the other 10% it is available on request. That solves the issues of 1) Flash in the background draining the battery or exploiting security holes and 2) the annoying advertisements.
It's great to have Flash there when you need it. So many sites still have integral Flash content.
That doesn't address the user experience when interacting with the apps written for desktop computers on a tablet, which was one of the core complaints.
The truth is that interacting with applications written for a different platform sucks. It sucks especially for Flash because Flash was generally used to build interactive applications that HTML/JavaScript couldn't. However, it isn't confined to Flash. I've had HTML5 apps that expected mouse/keyboard usage that couldn't be replicated on a tablet and they sucked, too.
I agree (and I have no idea why you're being downvoted). I don't always need Flash on my phone, but in the situations where I do I'm really grateful to have it. And click-to-flash is the ideal way of handling this.
I've used flash on 2 Android devices. My experiences so far:
* On my Nexus One: Yes, flash is to slow to be worthwhile, and input tends to be awkward on the small screen anyway. Uninstalled.
* On a Xoom (running 3.1): I just downloaded flash last week to watch a couple episodes of Legend of Neil while I was at lunch. Playback was great, about what I would expect if I were using a small screen netbook or something like that. I was quite glad I had the option to use flash. My browser is set to only load plugins on "click", so I get the best of both worlds really (not sure if that was the default or not). Flash only loads when I want it to, but it's there if I do want it.
He even acknowledges in the report that he hasn't tried Android 3.1, in which the main claim to fame is that Flash doesn't suck.
If you're going to write an inflammatory article, can you at least test against the latest version, especially when the main improvement in the latest version is on the thing you're testing?
3.1 isn't out for the Asus Eee Pad Transformer yet (which I have). The article might be inflammatory but only states fact.
The flash experience on the Eee is dire. Watching iPlayer is an exercise in frustration with choppyness and even sound/video syncing issues occasionally. That "not optimized for mobile" message that we see now and again might as well say "this will be very sluggish and likely make you want to pull your hair out". Running HD videos natively is no sweat for the it, on the other hand.
In the past month or so, I've had friends with iPhones ask me several times to look something up because the website they were checking (restaurant sitesin a couple of case, and a local band site in another) used a Flash menu or splash screen. It's obviously idiotic for the website designer to do such a thing, but it's extremely common. I gloat a little every time an iPhone user has to ask me to do something on my Android phone.
Not to mention that you don't have to install it if you don't want it. I like having the option there for me to make, not have someone there to make it for me.
I can't speak to tablets, but its great to have on my phone. I'll routinely pull up things like espn3 when wanting to watch a game when I'm not at home. For that, it works wonders.
I have been using a galaxy tab 10.1 for the last two weeks, and flash was one of the first apps I installed. As the founder of a hybrid html/flash site, I have been sorely missing the opportunity to demo my work on a tablet - but I was elated by the performance of flash on my tablet. What Jobs said is partially true - I use flash exclusively for video. Fortunatly, the user interface is html/js - so 'porting' to the tablet is a matter of adding a few event listeners that respond to 'press in addition to 'click.
I find the all-or-nothing articles about Flash to be tiresome. No, flash is not as good on phones as native apps. No, you can't load up a flash video or game and know with certainty that it will work well. But yes, you can watch most videos you find floating around with reasonable framerate, and yes there are sites which have games that work pretty good (Kongregate is one). I used to watch Conan on my Nexus One in bed all the time and it worked fine. That not cutting edge hardware.
Do we have to say something is "worthless". Is the line between worthy and worthless so razor thin? Why can't we just say something is merely ok, or it's hit or miss?
If Flash doesn't work on the web then people won't use it.
But it's my _choice_ whether to use Flash or not, and to decide whether it's useless, a bit useful, or absolutely vital. It's not for someone else to make that choice for me.
I do not use flash on my Atrix. It is slow, and it sucks to use. The only legitimate reason to use it is to have access to video streams that are not YouTube. However, last I checked, streaming video in a supported codec to a mobile device was a solved problem. Maybe some sort of a standard would emerge that would allow video hosting sites to not have to use Flash. I feel that it should have the number 5 in it somewhere. Maybe starts with HTML... </sarcasm>
I have Flash support on one of the fastest phones in the US. Watching Hulu is so painful that it is useless. I don't care if Adobe wants to give me the choice. However, I wish more sites would learn to not rely on it.
The problem is that encoding in multiple codecs is prohibitively expensive, and it's an ongoing cost that businesses smaller than Youtube don't want to pay. Therefore the most cost effective solution is to use Flash since you can't deliver high quality video in a single codec to all PC users without it.
You lose iPad, but at least the codec you're using allows you to deliver HTML5 video there fairly easily. The point is your stuck with Flash unless you want to incur a cost per video of encoding multiple codecs, and in many cases this can't even be automated effectively without a human being involved.
I know Apple was hoping that not supporting Flash would make everyone provide alternate avenues to their content but I don't really see it. Just "you need Flash to view this" and I wish I had even a somewhat buggy Flash version over nothing.
My experience has been the opposite (though I don't for a second doubt yours): I've been surprised by a) how few things I missed having Flash for when I first started not having it and b) how many fewer things I miss it for in 2011 than when I first started not having it - it used to be that I felt like I couldn't watch video on the web on my iPhone... now when I hit a site that doesn't have HTML5 video I'm surprised (and think poorly of the site rather than of my device).
The transition away from Flash is slow indeed. It's legacy... But it's happening. Even my non-technical friends seem to hate flash, and I don't know anyone that'd use it for a new site.
For my two phones (HTC Hero, HTC Desire) it's always been rubbish: not touchy, seconds-per-frame, not fullscreen, frequent massive updates. I've now uninstalled it as of two months ago.
I still find Flash useful on my Atrix for watching video-on-demand services, but its ability to use a touch-centric interface is atrocious. Not horribly upset that it isn't on my iPad.
The multi-touch APIs are relatively new in Flash Player. Hopefully that will improve as developers work against those as well as the mouse-centric APIs that have been used traditionally.
Totally disagree, I've used both the iPad and a Honeycomb tablet. I was able to watch so much more content with the Android tablet, stuff from blip.tv, custom players, even custom streaming video players. It's not as good as the desktop version, but it's a lot better than the Flash player on Boxee and others.
There may certainly be issues with Flash on Android, but it's not useless on all tablets.
Flash works great on the Blackberry Playbook. When other developers ask me about the device, at some point I typically end up demoing Amazon streaming video. Most are quite surprised by how well it works.
=>"A few minutes later I suggested that my co-worker buy his mom a netbook."
Since it was for a mom, it had to be Windows but if it's not windows, I would seriously want to defer the idea of buying even a netbook. It's not just the mobile devices and OS. It extends even further. Adobe could probably give genuine reasons for bad flash on Apple devices (they say Apple did not co-operate enough) but what stops them from making it better on Linux. There is no bigger pain than running flash on ubuntu. I run ubuntu 11.04 and my laptop turns off itself within 2 hours of running flash.
Flash sucking on tablets, phones, or even netbooks (at least ARM based), isn't entirely Adobe's fault. The SoC manufacturers are tasked to get Flash working on their chipsets. That means nVidia, Freescale, TI, Samsung, Apple. Adobe's NDA for working on Flash is... well, restrictive. I'd bet that anyone who has signed it isn't going to be one of the companies top programmers, due to the nature of some of the restrictions in it.
It's not really useless. The sweet spot is to disable browser plugins in the Android browser by default. And then only enable the Flash elements you specifically want. It works well for Hulu and whatnot.
Now, if the Android browser didn't let me disable everything by default, I would run screaming.
But with the scheme it has, it satisfies both camps, the people who don't want the encumbrance of Flash, and those who do.
[+] [-] thailandstartup|15 years ago|reply
It's great to have Flash there when you need it. So many sites still have integral Flash content.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|15 years ago|reply
The truth is that interacting with applications written for a different platform sucks. It sucks especially for Flash because Flash was generally used to build interactive applications that HTML/JavaScript couldn't. However, it isn't confined to Flash. I've had HTML5 apps that expected mouse/keyboard usage that couldn't be replicated on a tablet and they sucked, too.
[+] [-] Niten|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Relwal|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adestefan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theBobMcCormick|15 years ago|reply
* On my Nexus One: Yes, flash is to slow to be worthwhile, and input tends to be awkward on the small screen anyway. Uninstalled.
* On a Xoom (running 3.1): I just downloaded flash last week to watch a couple episodes of Legend of Neil while I was at lunch. Playback was great, about what I would expect if I were using a small screen netbook or something like that. I was quite glad I had the option to use flash. My browser is set to only load plugins on "click", so I get the best of both worlds really (not sure if that was the default or not). Flash only loads when I want it to, but it's there if I do want it.
[+] [-] Relwal|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|15 years ago|reply
If you're going to write an inflammatory article, can you at least test against the latest version, especially when the main improvement in the latest version is on the thing you're testing?
[+] [-] philjackson|15 years ago|reply
The flash experience on the Eee is dire. Watching iPlayer is an exercise in frustration with choppyness and even sound/video syncing issues occasionally. That "not optimized for mobile" message that we see now and again might as well say "this will be very sluggish and likely make you want to pull your hair out". Running HD videos natively is no sweat for the it, on the other hand.
[+] [-] barredo|15 years ago|reply
Sorry, didn't flash suppose to stop sucking in 2.2, 2.3 and 3.0? Sorry, I'm just curious, not flaming.
[+] [-] c0nsilience|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wccrawford|15 years ago|reply
No, I use Flash on my Android for those idiotic sites that use it as an integral part of the site. iPads can't go to those sites, but I can.
I agree that it's a dog and far too slow... But I only use it when I have to.
[+] [-] SwellJoe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tincansandtwine|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enjo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Qz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adestefan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|15 years ago|reply
Do we have to say something is "worthless". Is the line between worthy and worthless so razor thin? Why can't we just say something is merely ok, or it's hit or miss?
[+] [-] AndrewDucker|15 years ago|reply
But it's my _choice_ whether to use Flash or not, and to decide whether it's useless, a bit useful, or absolutely vital. It's not for someone else to make that choice for me.
[+] [-] technomancy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IgorPartola|15 years ago|reply
I have Flash support on one of the fastest phones in the US. Watching Hulu is so painful that it is useless. I don't care if Adobe wants to give me the choice. However, I wish more sites would learn to not rely on it.
[+] [-] Almaviva|15 years ago|reply
You lose iPad, but at least the codec you're using allows you to deliver HTML5 video there fairly easily. The point is your stuck with Flash unless you want to incur a cost per video of encoding multiple codecs, and in many cases this can't even be automated effectively without a human being involved.
[+] [-] smackfu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glhaynes|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wladimir|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikemaccana|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] estenh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelhooks|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vladikoff|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marklubi|15 years ago|reply
Flash works great on the Blackberry Playbook. When other developers ask me about the device, at some point I typically end up demoing Amazon streaming video. Most are quite surprised by how well it works.
[+] [-] nutjob123|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uast23|15 years ago|reply
Since it was for a mom, it had to be Windows but if it's not windows, I would seriously want to defer the idea of buying even a netbook. It's not just the mobile devices and OS. It extends even further. Adobe could probably give genuine reasons for bad flash on Apple devices (they say Apple did not co-operate enough) but what stops them from making it better on Linux. There is no bigger pain than running flash on ubuntu. I run ubuntu 11.04 and my laptop turns off itself within 2 hours of running flash.
[+] [-] steevdave|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nasmorn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runjake|15 years ago|reply
Now, if the Android browser didn't let me disable everything by default, I would run screaming.
But with the scheme it has, it satisfies both camps, the people who don't want the encumbrance of Flash, and those who do.
[+] [-] mike-cardwell|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andybak|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnsmurf|15 years ago|reply