Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 110 posts

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#11

Post by huggyface »

EnderMB wrote: post #4

I have a Galaxy Nexus, and I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I find Flash works pretty well on the device. Granted, I only use it for video content on sites like the BBC, but the underlying functionality is fine. I don't think Flash has a future on mobile devices, but HTML5-based solutions aren't up to scratch for general use yet, so I don't think Adobe should throw in the towel just yet.

Same experience -- Flash works close to perfectly on my Galaxy S II.

This isn't a technology move, however, but rather is a revenue move: Adobe makes no money from Flash, but instead makes money from authoring tools. The lack of an iOS target is killing the authoring tools on the Flash side (who would build a new site or delivery mechanism using Flash when you know it cuts out a huge portion of the market?). So Adobe is refocusing on HTML5 tools.

Even though Flash is useful today, Google doesn't want to inherit the cost and risk of developing it on mobile so....no more Flash.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#12

Post by ThomPete »

mberning wrote: post #10
hahaiamatwork wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Can you present a coherent argument against enabling flash that isn't just "I don't want to use it so nobody else should be allowed to"?

Coherent argument? Sucks battery Poor usability on touch interfaces Memory hog Buggy, leads to browser crashes

Poor usability? What does that even mean in this context?

Flash allow you to create any kind of interface and experience you want.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#13

Post by hahaiamatwork »

estel wrote: post #6
hahaiamatwork wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Can you present a coherent argument against enabling flash that isn't just "I don't want to use it so nobody else should be allowed to"?

Isn't there an extent to which forced deprecation of software like Flash might hasten the uptake of newer technologies like HTML5? Fortunately iOS already did most of this on its own. But reduced support can always encourage more websites to move to HTML5.

I agree, but as another poster said, the technology simply isn't there.

I haven't tested an iPhone 4S yet, but I did develop some javascript canvas based animations for some time, and the performance was extremely poor. The old benchmark I used was http://themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/ I believe, and I have yet to see HTML outperform flash on it.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#14

Post by hahaiamatwork »

mberning wrote: post #10
hahaiamatwork wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Can you present a coherent argument against enabling flash that isn't just "I don't want to use it so nobody else should be allowed to"?

Coherent argument? Sucks battery Poor usability on touch interfaces Memory hog Buggy, leads to browser crashes

These are all current arguments against HTML animations as well as Flash.

HTML also supports a 'mouseover' element, just as Flash does, so I don't consider that to be a strong argument.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#16

Post by narkee »

hahaiamatwork wrote: post #5
ryandvm wrote: post #2

Thank God.

Why? Can you present a coherent argument against enabling flash that isn't just "I don't want to use it so nobody else should be allowed to"?

Replace Flash with IE6 and I think you'll get a clearer understanding of where people are coming from.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#17

Post by 51Cards »

EnderMB wrote: post #4

I have a Galaxy Nexus, and I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I find Flash works pretty well on the device. Granted, I only use it for video content on sites like the BBC, but the underlying functionality is fine. I don't think Flash has a future on mobile devices, but HTML5-based solutions aren't up to scratch for general use yet, so I don't think Adobe should throw in the towel just yet.

Agreed as well. I often make use of Flash on both my tablet and my Nexus One. The times I notice it most is when I'm using the new Firefox Mobile and I have to copy the URL and paste it into the stock browser to get to flash content. That tedious process makes me realize I do it a lot more than I expected I would. I am very very disappointed by this decision.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#18

Post by nachteilig »

hahaiamatwork wrote: post #5
ryandvm wrote: post #2

Thank God.

Why? Can you present a coherent argument against enabling flash that isn't just "I don't want to use it so nobody else should be allowed to"?

To be honest, after I had used iPhone for a while I preferred the flash-less web so much that I also disabled the plugin on my computer. I haven't really missed it at all, and the web experience has been much better for me.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#19

Post by [deleted] »

huggyface wrote: post #8
estel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there an extent to which forced deprecation of software like Flash might hasten the uptake of newer technologies like HTML5? Fortunately iOS already did most of this on its own. But reduced support can always encourage more websites to move to HTML5.

Fortunately iOS already did most of this on its own. By pushing everyone to apps? iOS is no shepherd in the movement to standardized, cross-platform solutions. It is probably the greatest setback the open web has faced in over a decade.

[deleted]

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#20

Post by hahaiamatwork »

narkee wrote: post #16
hahaiamatwork wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Can you present a coherent argument against enabling flash that isn't just "I don't want to use it so nobody else should be allowed to"?

Replace Flash with IE6 and I think you'll get a clearer understanding of where people are coming from.

My argument isn't 'Flash is great'.

It's 'Flash works and I see no need to break a bunch of websites when the replacements are not yet up to the task'

Post reply on HN