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

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#101

Post by Jimmie »

Karunamon wrote: post #85
untog wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no fucking idea what people find attractive about mobile flash Being able to watch video?

A massive percentage of the internet's video consumption (YouTube and related sites) is already served by HTML5.

You are wrong. Html5 for Youtube is still an opt-in trial, unless you are on a platform without flash.

As for related sites, while most I frequent seem to keep their files in .mp4 format rather than .flv the players are all flash based. Probably because it's easier to serve ads.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#102

Post by Jimmie »

nyellin wrote: post #25
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"?

Flash is a proprietary standard with one major implementation, HTML 5 is an open standard supported by multiple vendors. Accessibility (i.e. for the blind) used to be an issue, but Wikipedia claims that has mostly been fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_HTML5_and_Flash#A...

Flash may be owned but it is released as open source. The language is completely open, there is an open source compiler and an open source VM.

HTML5, as it is, is a pain in the butt because of multiple vendors supporting subsets of it. I still have to fall back to flash to play mp3s in Firefox.

HTML5 will be great someday, but it's not today and probably not soon.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#103

Post by voidrandom »

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.

I have a Toshiba Thrive tablet and have found Flash there to be quite useable for most apps that aren't games and even a lot of those work fine.

I think Flash could have a future, if Adobe actually put work into making it more integrated (and Apple let them).

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#104

Post by justincormack »

Jimmie wrote: post #101
Karunamon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A massive percentage of the internet's video consumption (YouTube and related sites) is already served by HTML5.

You are wrong. Html5 for Youtube is still an opt-in trial, unless you are on a platform without flash. As for related sites, while most I frequent seem to keep their files in .mp4 format rather than .flv the players are all flash based. Probably because it's easier to serve ads.

Yes but mobile is a platform without flash, and is a large amount of youtube views. Not sure if you can opt in to flash youtube on Android.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#105

Post by batista »

tomkin wrote: post #93
batista wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are far from over. People cite YouTube HTML5 player without considering how vlogs are actually recorded, processed and uploaded through Flash. As the viewer, it's a nice luxury to say it can all be done through HTML5, but as a producer of content you'd have a different opinion. Huh? How many vlogs are "actually recorded, processed and uploaded through Flash"? I don't think many people, and certainly not many pro…

In YT's early days it was mostly people recording vlongs and responses from their webcam. You Tube. Get it? Certainly professional vloggers would rather use a nicely cut, professionally edited version. But that doesn't represent the majority of YT users. That bizarro world you talk about is the underpinnings of YT's critical mass.

Many wrong assumptions here.

1) People did produce vlogs and responses from their webcam. You got that right. But this has nothing to do with Flash, and it's ability to use the webcam on a flash app. People making vlogs with their webcam just used one of several commercial video apps to create them, not some flash page.

2) I seriously doubt vlogs were "the underpinnings of YT's critical mass". YT got popular because of its videos (of cats, songs, babes, funny stuff, etc), not because of video blogging or the NUMA guy.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#106

Post by starwed »

pcwalton wrote: post #76
starwed wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime there was a post about firefox mobile on /r/reddit, folk came out of the woodwork saying they would never even consider using it until it supported flash. (Which, interestingly, it now does.) I have no fucking idea what people find attractive about mobile flash (maybe games?) but it certainly seems to be a thing.

Restaurant sites. For Mobile Firefox our main test case for Flash is dairyqueen.com.

Heh, that's a good point. Though most restaurant sites are so useless even on a computer that I don't bother visiting them -- I just check the hours/# on one of the review sites like Yelp.

In recent times most local places I care about have put up Facebook pages with easy to find info.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#107

Post by pornel »

casca wrote: post #37

Hats off to Apple. They managed to take a technology that was entrenched as a standard and kill it simply by refusing to support it on their mobile platform. For years people have been complaining about the lack of IOS flash support, but the true impact has been to hasten the move to HTML5 and to kill a proprietary, bloated, bug-filled technology.

Apple couldn't make it without help of Adobe.

For years (even after iPhone shipped) Adobe only had "Flash Lite" to offer, and allowed it to lag many versions behind desktop version (e.g. Opera on Wii had trouble when YouTube started dropping support for Flash 7 and Adobe simply didn't have anything more modern available in "Devices SDK").

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#108

Post by tomkin »

batista wrote: post #105
tomkin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In YT's early days it was mostly people recording vlongs and responses from their webcam. You Tube. Get it? Certainly professional vloggers would rather use a nicely cut, professionally edited version. But that doesn't represent the majority of YT users. That bizarro world you talk about is the underpinnings of YT's critical mass.

Many wrong assumptions here. 1) People did produce vlogs and responses from their webcam. You got that right. But this has nothing to do with Flash, and it's ability to use the webcam on a flash app. People making vlogs with their webcam just used one of several commercial video apps to create them, not some flash page. 2) I seriously doubt vlogs were "the underpinnings of YT's critical mass". YT got popular because…

> People did produce vlogs and responses from their webcam. You got that right. But this has nothing to do with Flash

It has everything to do with Flash. Flash was the only reliable way to record via webcam and have it instantly available. I say that it contributed to YT's critical mass because YT made it easy for anyone to record and upload. No crappy bundled webcam software could beat that. YT didn't need to explain it. No "if you have this webcam, use this software" or "open Quicktime and export as a .mpg, then..." BS. Record, hit stop, hit upload. Done.

> I seriously doubt vlogs were "the underpinnings of YT's critical mass". YT got popular because of its videos (of cats, songs, babes, funny stuff, etc)

You have to respect that YT is a community, one with a pretty significant voice. Type in "sopa", "war in iraq", or "arab spring" and see how many cat videos you get. Video sites were already around - a video site you could contribute your voice to - that's what made YT a success.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#109

Post by batista »

tomkin wrote: post #108
batista wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many wrong assumptions here. 1) People did produce vlogs and responses from their webcam. You got that right. But this has nothing to do with Flash, and it's ability to use the webcam on a flash app. People making vlogs with their webcam just used one of several commercial video apps to create them, not some flash page. 2) I seriously doubt vlogs were "the underpinnings of YT's critical mass". YT got popular because…

> People did produce vlogs and responses from their webcam. You got that right. But this has nothing to do with Flash It has everything to do with Flash. Flash was the only reliable way to record via webcam and have it instantly available. I say that it contributed to YT's critical mass because YT made it easy for anyone to record and upload. No crappy bundled webcam software could beat that. YT didn't need to explai…

It has everything to do with Flash. Flash was the only reliable way to record via webcam and have it instantly available.

Citation needed. I don't know of ANY remotely popular flash vlog recording service of the time. Not to mention that vlogs in general never got that popular, period.

You have to respect that YT is a community, one with a pretty significant voice. Type in "sopa", "war in iraq", or "arab spring" and see how many cat videos you get.

YT is not a community at all. It has tens of millions of extremely diverse members. You can find any kind of shit in YT, from democratic, to republican, to anarchistic, to pro-nazi, to various nationalisms, to kittens, to porn, to full length movies, to ads, to high culture, to fart jokes, ... What part seems like a specific community with a voice to you? It's just the assemblage of millions of individual tastes and opinions.

The fact you can find things about sopa, war in iraq, arab spring etc does not mean anything of the sort of YT being a "community" with a "voice". It's like finding emails and blog posts about such issues: of course you will, there are millions of bloggers, thousands of them are bound to write about the issues of the day.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#110

Post by [deleted] »

tomkin wrote: post #108
batista wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many wrong assumptions here. 1) People did produce vlogs and responses from their webcam. You got that right. But this has nothing to do with Flash, and it's ability to use the webcam on a flash app. People making vlogs with their webcam just used one of several commercial video apps to create them, not some flash page. 2) I seriously doubt vlogs were "the underpinnings of YT's critical mass". YT got popular because…

> People did produce vlogs and responses from their webcam. You got that right. But this has nothing to do with Flash It has everything to do with Flash. Flash was the only reliable way to record via webcam and have it instantly available. I say that it contributed to YT's critical mass because YT made it easy for anyone to record and upload. No crappy bundled webcam software could beat that. YT didn't need to explai…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN