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

71–80 of 110 posts

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#71

Post by ThomPete »

gsa wrote: post #68
talmand wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly does a user "force" a developer to fix their code when they use HS+HTML+CSS?

Answering both ThomPete and talmand here: In Flash, browser shortcuts like ^L are always broken and you have no choice about that, because that's the way Flash is designed. If a similar thing happens in a non-Flash environment, it's because the developer designed it so. If many users complain to the developer about stuff being broken, it has to count for something.

Not enough to claim poor usability (which is btw, have nothing to do with)

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#72

Post by gurkendoktor »

talmand wrote: post #55
51Cards wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree, most of the arguments from individuals I've seen against Flash are simply, "I don't like it therefore I want to stop others from using it". I find it interesting that one of the leading arguments against Flash is that it's a proprietary plugin that is not "open". So clearly the solution to this is to close off the option of using it, doesn't seem like a very "open" attitude. I thought it was about choice but…

> So clearly the solution to this is to close off the option of using it

Apple did not secretly turn off a global flag "allowFlash = NO;" - they did not put work into supporting it. These are completely different things.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#73

Post by tomkin »

mvip wrote: post #64

Flash is the new Internet Explorer. I remember a point in time when it was painful to use browsers other than IE, because so many developers took the easy way out and only supported IE (and their managers didn't know/care). Those days are of course over (well, mostly at least). Flash is, or at least used to be, the easy way out. People used it because it was easier than HTML5. Hence, when a company asks for a quote o…

> People who used it because it was easier than HTML5.

Having developed both HTML5 and Flash applications, your use of the word was shows a bit of ignorance when it comes to Flash. It is still easier in Flash to do a high-velocity, interactive site that works across multiple browsers. If you think differently, you're not actually doing the work.

Armchair critics of Flash just regurgitate what they perceive is truth – HTML5's abilities are on par with Flash. But it isn't true. To be clear, my support is with HTML5, not Flash. But as someone who works with both daily, I'd be pretty biased if I went around telling people that HTML5 is a trouble-free alternative to Flash. That would be a pretty big lie.

> Luckily, those days are over.

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. We all know about Web Audio API[1] and Capture API[2]. No need to mention how they are X years away. They aren't here today.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/audioproc/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-capture-api-20100401/

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#74

Post by ootachi »

ugh wrote: post #3

Didn't Adobe already say that they will no longer develop Flash for mobile devices – so isn't this kind of self-evident?

Google could have implemented it. Firefox Mobile Nightly (which is essentially a completely different browser from the currently-shipping Firefox Mobile), for example, implements the necessary support to run Flash on Ice Cream Sandwich and on Gingerbread and below. It's just a matter of exposing the plugin hooks.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#75

Post by notatoad »

tomkin wrote: post #73
mvip wrote: post #64

Flash is the new Internet Explorer. I remember a point in time when it was painful to use browsers other than IE, because so many developers took the easy way out and only supported IE (and their managers didn't know/care). Those days are of course over (well, mostly at least). Flash is, or at least used to be, the easy way out. People used it because it was easier than HTML5. Hence, when a company asks for a quote o…

> People who used it because it was easier than HTML5. Having developed both HTML5 and Flash applications, your use of the word was shows a bit of ignorance when it comes to Flash. It is still easier in Flash to do a high-velocity, interactive site that works across multiple browsers. If you think differently, you're not actually doing the work. Armchair critics of Flash just regurgitate what they perceive is truth –…

I interpreted the was to mean it was an option. Flash used to be the easiest option. Now with the runtime not being present on apple devices and it's total demise imminent, it's still just as easy to use but it's no longer a viable option.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#76

Post by pcwalton »

starwed wrote: post #52
mcav wrote: post #15

This should be old hat at this point. Flash is done on mobile. (Had it ever begun?)

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.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#77

Post by ugh »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #47
ugh wrote: post #21

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. 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 HTML…

Yeah, that would have been swell had Apple worked with all their might to bring DRM to Safari! /s

What is wrong with you?! You are talking about the tiny slice of all possible stuff that pretends it needs fucking DRM. What. The. Hell.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#78

Post by arcdrag »

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.

Has it been hastened considerably? It has been 3 years now since the controversy began...or centuries in internet time.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#79

Post by tomkin »

notatoad wrote: post #75
tomkin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who used it because it was easier than HTML5. Having developed both HTML5 and Flash applications, your use of the word was shows a bit of ignorance when it comes to Flash. It is still easier in Flash to do a high-velocity, interactive site that works across multiple browsers. If you think differently, you're not actually doing the work. Armchair critics of Flash just regurgitate what they perceive is truth –…

I interpreted the was to mean it was an option. Flash used to be the easiest option. Now with the runtime not being present on apple devices and it's total demise imminent, it's still just as easy to use but it's no longer a viable option.

If you're an iOS user, HTML5 is a magical place where you can do anything – outside of iOS, it's hit or miss. And if it's hit or miss, it might as well be Flash.

Remember that a client's perspective is often neat, cool and fun rather than works on all devices the exact same.

Flash will die when HTML5 signs the cheques that it's collective evangelicals cash.

Re: Adobe confirms: no Flash for Chrome on Android

#80

Post by poppysan »

I will be sad to see no flash support. I mostly use it for gaming on my tablet and galaxy s II and have had absolutely no issues. My mom got a transformer for Christmas and has been able to play all of her Facebook games (90% of her internet usage). It is really a bad move that directly affects ppl like my mom and other casual gamers.
Post reply on HN