[mlunar]

I'm not trying to say it was good on mobile, from many accounts it was apparently bad. But we never got to find out for real, did we?

It's irrelevant though as if Apple cared so much about preserving the user experience, they would also block slow or crashy websites, which they didn't, because they don't pose a threat to their business model.

And it doesn't pose a threat because they (still) control what is possible on iOS web by restricting browser engines to webkit only.

[inferiorhuman]

Well, no. Let's not pretend that Apple is (or was) the only player in the mobile phone space. Had mobile flash actually provided Android with a tangible advantage, it wouldn't have died. Adobe couldn't provide a decent experience on desktop, couldn't provide a decent experience on any of the non-Apple mobile platforms they supported, but suddenly the downfall of flash was Apple's responsibility? We really did see what flash could do on mobile and it wasn't great, there was no reason for Apple to put more lipstick on that pig.

Dunno about Android, but crashy web sites weren't really a thing I've ever had to deal with on iOS (or BB10).

[mlunar]

I'm not sure how to respond to this, it just seems to be quite a distorted Apple-centric view. I will leave a few references and make of it what you will.

"only player in mobile space" iOS had 28% market share when the letter was published (Q2 2010), just after Symbian with 33% and Symbian was not on the same level of "smartphone". Android was 4%. So yes, what was supported in iOS had a significant effect on the industry as a whole. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-sha...

"It was bad/slow/unstable" Sure, but that's irrelevant. It's not even the main problem Jobs had with it. It's that he lost control over the platform and, if you read between the lines, the App Store revenue. Read the letter and ensuing battle yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_on_Flash#References