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

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#41

Post by Turing_Machine »

huggyface wrote: post #33
Turing_Machine wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari and Chrome are both based on Webkit. SVN here: http://www.webkit.org/building/checkout.html Apple's original plan was that third-party stuff would be in web app form. They took tons of flak from the developer community over that, so no, they didn't "push everyone to apps".

Safari and Chrome are both based on Webkit. And webkit derived from KHTML (loosely), the project coming to public attention as Apple came under criticism for taking but not giving. Apple's original plan And Google's original plan was don't be evil. I would never -- even if I ever got some screwed up idea that I need to defend a corporation online -- reference that to defend their honour.

I'm not "defending their hono[u]r". I'm pointing out that they didn't "push everyone to apps", which is a fact.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#42

Post by ThomPete »

Zirro wrote: post #32
ThomPete wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor usability? What does that even mean in this context? Flash allow you to create any kind of interface and experience you want.

"Flash allow you to create any kind of interface and experience you want." Exactly, and that's the problem. It means that it behaves the way the author wants it to, ignoring the users preferences. That is poor usability. I have lots of small annoyances with Flash, take for example the inability to auto-scroll across it (at least in Firefox on OS X). This would not be the case with normal content.

So does HTML+CSS+JS

I still have a hard time seeing the point here

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#43

Post by firat »

51Cards wrote: post #24
mberning wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The battery argument is just silly. Playing HD movies on a phone will suck battery faster but we don't remove the user's ability to do that. As for the others, I use Flash frequently on my phone and none of them have occurred for me in the last year or so. I have Flash set to load on demand. It's not about Flash being the future (it's not), or even continued development in it. It's about access to existing content he…

The problem is I watch the movies when I want to watch them. Flash is embedded in random. You can always have click-to-flash solutions but those are usually buggy and there are other solid arguments in the list.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#44

Post by veemjeem »

51Cards wrote: post #24
mberning wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The battery argument is just silly. Playing HD movies on a phone will suck battery faster but we don't remove the user's ability to do that. As for the others, I use Flash frequently on my phone and none of them have occurred for me in the last year or so. I have Flash set to load on demand. It's not about Flash being the future (it's not), or even continued development in it. It's about access to existing content he…

disagree. flash is often used for other content that may equally suck battery just as badly. Sometimes when I visit techcrunch on my laptop, one of the badly written flash ads causes my processor fan to crank on... when I close the tab the problem goes away. How does one explain that?

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#45

Post by bookwormAT »

swombat wrote: post #36
bookwormAT wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flash does not use any battery power at all, except when you choose to use a flash based application. The stock Android browser has the option to load plugins on demand. That is: no flash application is loaded within the browser until you click on the application to enable it. The same is true for memory usage or bugs. I don't think there are any advantages a browser without flash has over one that supports it.

A great many webpages have Flash adverts, so if you're browsing news sites, etc, normal sites that people do browse, you will probably end up being served Flash and so your battery will drain.

Again: not a single one of these adverts will load when you visit your website. You will see grey boxes with an icon on Android, similar to what you see on iOS. There is no flash running that could drain battery.

On-demand flash support means that you can touch one of these grey boxes, and only then will flash load and execute the application.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#46

Post by jonknee »

swombat wrote: post #36
bookwormAT wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flash does not use any battery power at all, except when you choose to use a flash based application. The stock Android browser has the option to load plugins on demand. That is: no flash application is loaded within the browser until you click on the application to enable it. The same is true for memory usage or bugs. I don't think there are any advantages a browser without flash has over one that supports it.

A great many webpages have Flash adverts, so if you're browsing news sites, etc, normal sites that people do browse, you will probably end up being served Flash and so your battery will drain.

Only if you go out of your way to load the Flash advertisements.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#47

Post by MatthewPhillips »

ugh wrote: post #21
huggyface wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kind of hard to believe, given that iOS was and still is the only mobile OS with a browser that does not suck. Even Android has only been catching up. iOS and Android have been an unambiguous blessing for the open web on mobile devices. I don't even understand what you want Apple to do. Not allow third party developers to make native apps for iOS? Apple did that and nobody liked it. I can't imagine that you think thi…

> I don't even understand what you want Apple to do. Not allow third party developers to make native apps for iOS? Apple did that and nobody liked it. I can't imagine that you think this is a realistic solution.

Here's the chain of events as I see it:

1) Apple decides not to support flash. 2) A lot of people get upset. 3) Apple releases their thoughts on flash[1] which revolves around flash being proprietary and HTML5 being an open solution. [1]http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ 4) Content owners can't delivery video through HTML5 because it's not DRM. 5) Apple works with content owners (specifically ABC) to create native iOS apps. Native apps on other platforms come way later, if ever. 6) HTML5 still doesn't have a solution for DRM content. Apple isn't working on this problem.

Basically they said one thing and then did another.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#48

Post by huggyface »

ugh wrote: post #35
huggyface wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of hard to believe, given that iOS was and still is the only mobile OS with a browser that does not suck. Yeah, I see John Gruber likes to say that. It is, so to speak, horse shit. I apologize for the language but it's all that satisfactorily delivers my opinion on that. Have you ever actually used the Android browser?

Yes, and it sucked. I have been quite happy with the browser that comes with ICS, so I would say there's parity now. But nice job ignoring the actual point I was making.

The point you were making was that the iOS browser is so superior to its competitors that it demonstrated Apple's commitment to the web.

Only the Android browser doesn't actually suck. I've never, ever heard someone actually describe why it sucks, they just repeat that going meme and smile and nod at each other. Yet despite all of its CSS chrome, many mobile dev projects abandon the effort and switch to an app after facing the less sexy, but deadly deficiencies in the iOS browser.

People are sure the iOS browser is great because they never actually use it. Instead they use apps.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#49

Post by zura »

huggyface wrote: post #11
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…

Regarding targeting iOS, there are tools such as http://www.haxenme.org/ Not really Flash but quite close.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#50

Post by gsa »

ThomPete wrote: post #42
Zirro wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Flash allow you to create any kind of interface and experience you want." Exactly, and that's the problem. It means that it behaves the way the author wants it to, ignoring the users preferences. That is poor usability. I have lots of small annoyances with Flash, take for example the inability to auto-scroll across it (at least in Firefox on OS X). This would not be the case with normal content.

So does HTML+CSS+JS I still have a hard time seeing the point here

With Flash, the user or the developer has no choice if scroll and keyboard shortcuts break. With JS+HTML+CSS, the user has a choice to force the developer to fix their code (and a developer to not write code which breaks browser stuff).
Post reply on HN