The Surprising Statistics Behind Flash and Apple 630
Barence writes "PC Pro's Tom Arah has dug up some statistics that cast severe doubt over Steve Jobs' assertion that Flash is the technology of the past, and Apple's iOS is the platform of the future. He quibbles with Net Applications' assertion that iOS growth is 'massive,' considering that mobile accounts for only 2.6% of web views, and the iOS share stands at only 1.1%. By comparison, Silverlight penetration now stands at 51% while 97% of web surfers have Flash installed, according to Stat Owl. 'At least when Bill Gates held the web to ransom he had the decency to first establish a dominant position,' Arah claims. 'In Steve Jobs' case, with only 1.1% market share, the would-be emperor isn't even wearing any clothes.'"
Oh dear... (Score:5, Funny)
How to we mark an entire story as -1, Flamebait?
Re:Oh dear... (Score:5, Funny)
How to we mark an entire story as -1, Flamebait?
I don't know, I suppose the same way we mark you as -1, Fanboy
Re:Oh dear... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know, I suppose the same way we mark you as -1, Fanboy
Thus you make his point for him nicely. There is no way to express an opinion on this subject without pissing people off, and it's mostly due to the tone of this article.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:5, Funny)
Change the Posted editor from CmdrTaco to kdawson.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't matter.
They aren't the real kdawson and CmdrTaco any more.
They've been replaced by a Python script.
The script cruises the firehose every 25 minutes and takes the top-scoring article no matter how stupid, stale, or binspam it is.
Every few hours it to the next name in the Poster-bot list, to give the impression that management is keeping the staff levels up.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There's an app for that.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree.
Jobs' position is one where key technologies, such as playing video, should be done by the web browser and not held for randsom by 3rd party plugin developers who'se best interest is to put their app on every device out there. Posting articles like this only pushes the debate back afew steps.
Flash + silverlight = can play video = browser plugins = win for particular corporations with vested interests to win at any cost
HTML5 (ie iOS, firefox 4) = can play video = html5 inside webbrowser = open standards = win for all
No codecs in common (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash + silverlight = can play video = browser plugins = win for particular corporations with vested interests to win at any cost
HTML5 (ie iOS, firefox 4) = can play video = html5 inside webbrowser = open standards = win for all
The "particular corporations with vested interests" being the MPEG-LA members, I take it? There are two kinds of video codecs: those that work in Safari for iOS and don't work in Firefox 4, and those that work in Firefox 4 and don't work in Safari for iOS. Apple has chosen not to implement any permissively licensed audio or video codec in Safari for iOS, not Vorbis, not Theora, and not VP8. How is this any improvement over the QuickTime vs. Windows Media Player war that existed before FLV?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ehmm.. The MPEG-4 container format IS Quicktime, it has nothing to do the video encoding though. It is just the container format of choice, so it is not "like Quicktime", it is "Quicktime", and this has nothing to do with H.264, you could embed VP8 into Quicktime if you so desired.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:4, Insightful)
Flash + silverlight = can play video = browser plugins = win for particular corporations with vested interests to win at any cost HTML5 (ie iOS, firefox 4) = can play video = html5 inside webbrowser = open standards = win for all
Exactly.
What point was missed in the stats was that while 97% of people may have flash installed and 51% have silverlight 100% of "web surfers" (hate that term) have a web browser installed.
Rather than 3rd party extensions to get the functionality needed for media doesn't it make a lot more sense to have open standards so that all browsers can display the media by implementing the standard? It becomes platform agnostic when you don't have to rely on a single vendor to release a binary for your particular platform (in this case platform being OS and browser combination).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh dear... (Score:4, Insightful)
HTML5 video playback is limited compared to what flash can do.
Not only on the implementation; on the (yet to be implemented completely on any browser) standard. Youtube flash player allows you to go to a specific part of a video, even if you have not pre-downloaded it. HTML 5 (the standard) lacks such mechanism.
Maybe in 5-7 years we'll have something worth it on the HTML5 field.
The HTML5 vs Flash, at least in the video section, is to me a "existing technology that works" vs "possible technology that might work in the future. Stress on 'might'". For now, I'll stick with what works.
Re: (Score:3)
"Jobs' position is one where key technologies, such as playing video, should be done by the web browser and not held for randsom by 3rd party plugin developers who'se best interest is to put their app on every device out there."
Exactly. They should be held ransom by the person who knows whats best for you .. His Jobness and his High Council of the Apple.
More like (-1, Redundant) (Score:5, Funny)
How to we mark an entire story as -1, Flamebait?
Let's see, Steve Jobs says a technology is complete crap and nobody would ever want to use it. So, that means in a year and a half, Jobs will be having a Flash love-in on stage somewhere.
If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is SJ holding the web at ransom if he is in such a weak position?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
It's like saying "At least the local sports team had the decency to score more points than it's opponent before winning the game!" ... Doesn't winning (or holding ransom) require points (dominant positon) in the first place?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is SJ holding the web at ransom if he is in such a weak position?
He isn't, SJ is just trying to make it sound like he is able to hold the web ransom and making the same BS claims about Flash in an effort to hold it ransom to his whims. SJ hopes to spout enough lies about Flash so everyone will adopt his version of HTML5 (not the so far agreed upon version since nothing is completely official), and if he can make his version of HTML5 the standard it will give him a lot of power on the web that he wants to use to leverage things like the iOS to his standards to keep more competition out of the game (similar to how IE was the 'standard' in the late 90's and helped lock out others like Netscape with sites "recommending IE only").
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are there any major differences between Google's or Mozilla's HTML5 proposals and Apple's, besides video? And how can Apple leverage that? You need a dominant position already to pull that kind of stunt - no webdev, even the very incompetent ones, will write HTML that only works for less than 10% of viewers. IE had already a dominant position because of OS integration.
If someone holds the Web at ransom is Adobe itself with Flash - although less than before.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are there any major differences between Google's or Mozilla's HTML5 proposals and Apple's, besides video?
No real major differences, but a load of minor proprietary webkit extensions to CSS.
no webdev, even the very incompetent ones, will write HTML that only works for less than 10% of viewers.
O rly? There's a ton of stuff which target the iPad and nothing but the iPad. It kinda feels like the good old days of IE6.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
[citation needed]
Can you show me how Apple's HTML5 implementation differs from anyone elses with some actual proof, or is this just biased anti-Apple ranting, just like the entire article?
I am betting on the former, but I am willing to listen to anyone who can actually back this claim up - a fragmented HTML5 serves no one.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:5, Insightful)
/facepalm
Are you serious?
They made a tech demo of pre-release HTML5 and you consider that "trying to take over the interwebs with proprietary Apple-only tech"?
That is seriously reaching.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's why Darwin, Webkit, GCC and so on are closed source and proprietary, right?
You do know that all of these existed as open source before Jobs got his hands on them, right?
Darwin = *BSD, WebKit = KHTML, and the G in GCC stands for GNU...
So he basically had to keep Apples versions thereof open.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it requires things specific to OS X, yeah, there IS stuff nefarious about that. The things about standards are they're supposed to be a set of specs anyone can use and be compliant, so that anyone's able to access it. If, all of a sudden, that standard mandates technology that must, due to patents, be obtained from Apple, and only Apple, that gives them an unfair advantage far beyond even Microsoft's IE stranglehold, since Apple would actually be able to say "No, you're not allowed access to our stuff" and shut people out of the market completely.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm guessing you missed that whole "HTML5 webpage showcase" [slashdot.org] that only worked on Safari and many of the functions weren't part of the normal sections of HTML5, and in fact needed OSX parts. These weren't the real HTML5 standards being discussed, but Apples version, right down to the fact it needed OSX to run properly (which happened to be proprietary)
You mean the HTML5 showcase that I just ran in Google Chrome and worked perfectly fine for the exception of the VR, however this same VR demo runs perfectly fine in the Chrome Canary build, meaning it's something that is indeed in the HTML5 definition.
Also, you may want to read this from the showcase: The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.
In other words: the whole point was bragging how they incorporated all that defined HTML5 goodness already. I doubt Google added the support to Chrome Canary just because Apple forced them to. Google is much more suborn than that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How is SJ holding the web at ransom if he is in such a weak position?
He isn't, SJ is just trying to make it sound like he is able to hold the web ransom and making the same BS claims about Flash in an effort to hold it ransom to his whims. SJ hopes to spout enough lies about Flash so everyone will adopt his version of HTML5 (not the so far agreed upon version since nothing is completely official), and if he can make his version of HTML5 the standard it will give him a lot of power on the web that he wants to use to leverage things like the iOS to his standards to keep more competition out of the game (similar to how IE was the 'standard' in the late 90's and helped lock out others like Netscape with sites "recommending IE only").
Actually, Steve Jobs has made it very clear he does not care about "holding the web ransom". They already are allowing flash wrapping applications. But they will not support flash within their browser. It is their choice, not a ransom. Adobe is the one that makes it sound as if they were being held hostage for not being accepted into the iOS Safari club. The irony is that most people that complain about the lack of Flash in the iPhone are people that either don't have an iOS device (and will never get one e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now there's a blind assertion. I have two iOS devices and two Android devices, and I've bitched about the closed-off nature of things in iOS, Flash included (and I think Flash sucks). Count me as one chink in your pulled-from-thin-air armor.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Interesting)
He's not holding the web at ransom, he's holding iPhone and iPad users at ransom, because they are the only people this really hurts (or helps).
Except it's Stevie, so he's not making any compromises.
There is some merit to his position, by the way, but it may be at Apple's expense (depending on how much $$$ Adobe wants to license Flash)
It's not a question of how great cool or widespread the Flash technology is in general.... its a question more of cost and how suitable the implementations are available for the iOS devices.
If most Flash apps won't work anyways, there's no point in allowing a broken framework, instead of pushing the next greatest standard.
It's risky, but if Flash is not suitable for mobile platforms it WILL be a thing of the past.
The question I would have is --- why is the article presenting skewed numbers, and including PC and Netbook users?
Netbook users may be more comparable to iPad users; but it's totally ridiculous to pit PC users against iOS users, and say a technology used on the web for PC users is suitable for mobile browsing
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Informative)
Flash is dog, dog slow on OS X right now, even with a lot of CPU grunt, and it has nothing to do with Apple "blocking access to necessary APIs" or the lack of hardware accelerated h.264 that Adobe (or others) will try to claim. It really is woeful at all animation, even when H.264 video is not involved at all. An iPhone version would just be even worse, since there just isn't the CPU grunt to cover up how poor it is. You can get away with it on a desktop machine - you have a 2GHz cpu mostly idle that can help you out with your simple flash page, but on a mobile device you actually have to make the code decent.
The biggest reason there is no Flash on iOS is performance. The HTML5 and open web are secondary concerns.
The 10.1 release of flash is much better on OS X, but it is still a terrible resource hog for no good reason. Even the Mac Silverlight player is much better. I assume MS has the same "access" to the core of OS X as Adobe do.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the software is different, even if the hardware is the same.
Flash runs ok on my iMac if I reboot it into Windows XP, running on literally identical hardware, but is a hog under OS X.
The argument isn't at all silly.
Adobe's Mac version of Flash is just really poor, although better with the 10.1 release. Given how much iOS and OS X have in common under the hood (at least as common as Android and Linux, for example), it is not hard to see why Flash on the iPhone is a non starter, even if Apple wanted it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no content that I'm missing out on
Well, *of course* there is. You may not value that content, and that's fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want Flash on my iPhone. There's no content that I'm missing out on and I use iOS way more than my desktop for general browsing.
Except it should be you making the decision, not Steve! I have an Android phone (HTC Aria) and I can use or not use Flash as I please since there's a browser setting for that (javascript too).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I, another iOS user, did make that decision. I decided to buy an iOS device (multiple in fact,) knowing full well that it didn't support flash, because I decided I didn't need or want it. Steve Jobs didn't choose it for me, he just made a device (both hardware and software) that suited my needs, just as HTC made a device that suits yours.
Steve Jobs doesn't decide things for me. As an informed buyer, I've found that our ideas of what make a good user experience are pretty well in line.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Another angle to this... Apple is approving Flash translated and sold through them, where they take a cut of the profits, but is not approving Flash that exists out on the web for free or otherwise.
Now there is a horrendously weak conspiracy theory.
If it's out in the open it's free. These devs can put these in the app store for free. Apple gets nothing. You can even make it have google ads that may yield you money but not a penny going to Apple.
Apple only gets a cut if you decide to charge for your app (up to you) or use iAd as your ad provider.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's also worth noting that we're not completely in the dark. I watch Netflix and Hulu on my iPhone using their custom app. I don't have to wait for pages to load so I'm
getting to the point much more quickly. The IMDB app is far more responsive than it is on Safari. I do not look forward to the idea of trying to play everything through the browser when the apps are so much more efficient. Screw Flash.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Insightful)
So there are people who do. Don't fall prey to the single-minority-myth. We're all part of some minority (or minorities, more likely), and it's fair to want options.
It's as easy as can be to selectively use Flash in Android.
First it was precision pointer support vs. touch, then it was performance, then it was stability, then it was "Flash sucks," then it was "why would anyone want it?"
When the arguments keep changing, the arguments just sucked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I fail to understand is why you'd want to deprive someone of the choice of iOS WITH Flash, if they so desired. If, knowing the potential issues, they still decide that they want iOS, but they want Flash as well, why can't they have that choice? You say "Then go buy a device that supports Flash," but seriously, why shouldn't there be an option? "Flash or iOS" is an artificial dichotomy, imposed purely through hearsay and posturing by both parties.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want Flash on my iPhone. There's no content that I'm missing out on and I use iOS way more than my desktop for general browsing.
This is something I want to put emphasis on. IF Steve Jobs decides to allow the clumsy Flash to make it into iOS safari, or if Adobe comes up with a version of Flash that is accepted by Steve, I still want an option not to have it at all. I want it to be a down-loadable app or perhaps a flash-enabled browser I'll have to download. I want to be the one to at the end decide if the thing goes into MY iPhone (hint, it wont be going into my iPhone if I have a choice.)
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:5, Interesting)
And the statistic is highly misleading anyway. Saying that 97% of computers can run Flash doesn't tell the whole story.
First, a lot of us use tools like click2flash that report themselves AS Flash, but are NOT Flash. Why do we do this? Because we got fed up with all the idiotic Flash-based adds that make buzzing sounds at random in background windows and make us jump straight out of our chairs. These people have Flash and put up with it when necessary, but generally avoid it. Those folks are difficult to distinguish from actual Flash "users", yet they suffer a degraded experience on Flash-heavy sites, and are less likely to come back.
Second, people have Flash largely because it came preinstalled. I don't know of anyone who has actually gone out of their way to install Flash. This means that those statistics could change on a dime.
Third, it assumes that all people use the web equally. For some sites, iOS-based devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch) make up as much as 11% of their traffic [wordpress.com] by volume. When it comes to ad revenue, the ratings don't matter. The share matters. It doesn't matter if they make up only 1% of the total number of Internet-equipped devices. What matters is their percentage of the traffic.
Fourth, it ignores the assumption that people buying iPads and iPhones are more likely to have disposable income than people buying a random Windows PC. Thus, for many advertisers, one iPhone user is equivalent to several netbook users. Once you understand that, suddenly even a 1% share becomes much more significant, and a 10% share becomes a showstopper.
Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? (Score:4, Insightful)
The GP was talking about downloads from one site, not all sites. I don't get what your point is anyway. People don't download Flash as if they are endorsing its quality, they just want to view the content. Likewise the majority of those who in the future download a new browser that supports HTML5 won't be doing it because they think that HTML5 is god's gift either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you can already make a web app on iOS that bypasses the store - it was the original way apps were going to be on the iPhone in the first place, and that method of delivery has never gone away. I don;t think it has anything to do with the store and profit margins - the profit on app sales is pretty slim anyway; the store exists to sell iOS devices, not as a cash cow for Apple indirectly. The devices are where the money is.
Slow script, no WebGL, no mic/camera access (Score:3, Insightful)
But you can already make a web app on iOS that bypasses the store
Of course you can in theory. It'll just run dog slow because the JavaScript engine reportedly isn't a JIT compiler, and it won't be able to use any feature of the hardware that the Safari DOM doesn't expose. For example, how well does WebGL run? Can web apps prompt the user to turn on the mic or camera?
100m facebook users are iPhone based (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read a recent statistic that has said that of the 500m Facebook users, 100m visit via the iPhone. So 2% of web views depends entirely on the sites you count, and whether those sites actually make money from their web presence.
Re:100m facebook users are iPhone based (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably more correctly, iphone users use apps and not mobile safari for a lot of normal web tasks. Movies, News, Social Networking, Media, Navagation... these are all done by apps.
Re:100m facebook users are iPhone based (Score:5, Informative)
I find that figure remarkable being as there have only been about 50 million iPhones (counting all generations) sold worldwide, according to Apple's quarterly reports.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Partly because their initial figure was wrong, partly because your figure is wrong (it was 60 million iPhones in June, rising by about 9 million a month), and partly because the iPhone isn't the only iOS device out there, there's a similar number of iPod touches, and a good 10 million iPads out there.
Re:100m facebook users are iPhone based (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, they recanted. http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/26/facebook-actually-there-are-44-million-active-monthly-users-of/ [engadget.com]
Floppy drives anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when Apple stopped shipping floppy drives with their computers just about 99% of 'manufactured' computers shipped with floppy drives. People said Apple was moving too fast. Now, a decade or so later, floppies have gone the way of the dinosaur.
There's probably quite a lot to make that analogy faulty. But I think Apple isn't holding anything randsom. They're just knowingly not supporting (what they see to be) old software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although, you have to admit the situation was different. When talking about the era of the floppy, CDs had already gained a huge amount of traction. They stopped shipping floppy drives in 1998; by then, every computer had a CD drive, and high end models were even shipping with DVD drives, two generations ahead of the floppy.
By contrast, when talking about Flash, there's nothing currently sitting with widespread adoption to usurp it. HTML5 isn't implemented fully, and nothing other than Sliverlight provides
Re:Floppy drives anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You've made a MacBook Air. Not sure if that answers your question.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Floppy drives anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
The OS has always supported right click, since at least OS 8.6 - just plug in a 2 button mouse, or use control+click. The single button was all about lack of confusion, but it was not "enforced" if you wanted to be able to right click. So, they listened to the feedback way back when OS 8 was the new thing (in 1997) and provided right click for those that wanted it. The only way this could possibly affect Mac sales if if people didn't actually do any research before purchase and just assumed. Perhaps this is why, in 2010, people still think you cannot right click on a Mac (not that you do think that, but I have seen it on slashdot).
All current Apple mice have right click. They haven't shipped a single button mouse for some time now. The wireless ones are multitouch too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The OS has always supported right click, since at least OS 8.6 - just plug in a 2 button mouse, or use control+click. The single button was all about lack of confusion, but it was not "enforced" if you wanted to be able to right click.
Correction: the OS has supported contextual menus since Mac OS 8.0 (1997), but right-clicking was not supported natively until Mac OS X (2001, but nobody used 10.0 because it was terrible). Prior to that, right-clicking was only supported through the use of third-party drivers (example [cnet.com]) that simulated a control-click.
As of Mac OS X, multiple button mice (with scroll wheels) are natively supported by the operating system.
Re:Floppy drives anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Apple hasn't shipped a mouse with only a single button in 5 years. Troll harder next time.
Re:Floppy drives anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Steve Jobs still clings to haptic studies done in the 80s that showed that Apple users are less confused when prevented with fewer ways to control things, while he's ignored a couple of decades' worth of feedback that Apple would sell more computers if they gave the user more control.
Feedback is noisy, and uncontrolled. It does not usually do a good job at accurately representing a majority opinion. On the contrary, random feedback tends to exaggerate the extreme opinions, as those who are simply happy with how things are do not provide feedback until prompted.
I've given a bundle of speeches and held trainings, one of the things you either learn by yourself over time or they tell you when you train for things like that is that feedback given afterwards while interesting and useful is never representative. You need to actually have people fill out a questionaire or something to get the majority opinion.
So, unless you cite some actual studies done on that subject, I doubt your assertion that Apple would sell more. Heck, I switched to Mac at a time where I could not understand how people can work on windos without the 3rd mouse button. The mouse I currently have on this Mac has 7 buttons and two wheels. The fact that Apple packaged a multi-touch mouse with 1,5 buttons doesn't bother me.
Re:Floppy drives anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, Intel put it on their mobo's as standard, Micorosft built the driver into XP as standard. USB prevailed.
In the late 90's Apple was pushing it's own proprietary Firewire, now days only the most expensive mainboards have firewire where as the cheapest have at least six USB (and still have one PS2 port). Firewire is dead in the water.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By the same token, Floppy drives are dead if you've never worked in the Server Administration industry...
Which one is bigger?
But *no one* else does. Contrary to your beliefs, Apple does not define standards, FireWire is dead except in the minds of a few obscure fanboys. eSata has almost completely replaced Firewire in every capacity that USB could not. It's only a matter of time before Firewire joins th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, Apple did not want to kill USB in favour of firewire, it always wanted them to work together, since they are complementary technologies - USB is good for the low speed stuff, firewire was better (and still is) at the high bandwidth, high IO stuff like hard drives and cameras and so on. They were always meant to work together, not to be exclusive.
The USB 1.1 spec came out in September 98, at the same time as the original iMac. While there were possibly some PCs that had ports before then, MS didn't add p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Repeat after me: Firewire and USB were never designed to be exclusive technologies; on Apple's computers (to this day) they work side by side.
Apple never wanted to replace USB with Firewire. They introduced firewire a year after USB on the iMac, and kept USB (funny that) for all the things it was good at, and had firewire for all the things USB sucked at (external hard drives, etc) that it still sucks at today.
Adobe has its work cut out (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, Steve Jobs was right. This [laptopmag.com] is a bigger problem for Adobe. Let them admit thet they need some help wit Flash...maybe Linus hackers can help out.
Bottom line: Flash sucks on Android big time.
Re:Adobe has its work cut out (Score:5, Informative)
Flash on Android is interesting. I think that article really misses the fact that it does in fact work, but some sites are really not designed for touch. I found its pretty fun to watch videos on my phone on sites like escapist.com - you can't do that on IOS, but you can on Android and it does work and its not a battery drain.
There are in fact examples of HTML 5 based sites [youtube.com] that totally fail on the ipod/iphone/ipad/android as well.
Re:Adobe has its work cut out (Score:4, Informative)
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjhF1xZQRQk - browser test is between the 6th and 7th minute
Re:Adobe has its work cut out (Score:4, Insightful)
Bottom line: Flash sucks on Android big time.
I don't get it. I have a nexus one. I have flash installed and I have it set to load when I ask it to. So here's what happens:
Here's what happens on the ipod touch:
So how does this suck?
If you're talking about the user experience, yes, many flash pages were not designed for a touch device because you can't completely emulate the mouse pointer with touch. But many javascript pages don't work well either when they assume a mouse pointer as well.
Wrong number (Score:5, Insightful)
This:
mobile accounts for only 2.6% of web views, and the iOS share stands at only 1.1%.
is presumably measured over a single set time period and is not a rate of change. It says nothing about this:
iOS growth is "massive"
I have no idea what the ransom bit is on about tho. Troll?
Market share != quality online experience. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because hundreds of millions of people have it installed, doesn't mean they like it.
Silverlight is probably closer to what Flash's market penetration would be if Flash hadn't become a compulsory install. If it weren't installed by default. SIlverlight is only installed because it blocks the path to content that people want to see. There's no SilverlightTube (yet). Few Silverlight webgames. It's only there because people want access to what it blocks.
When the day comes where it isn't assumed you need Flash player in order to be a good Internet consumer, you can expect to see it's market share plummet.
The numbers also don't account for the amount of frustration Flash causes people who have to use it. It's only been recently (version 10.1.18xxxxxx) that I can run Flash on my MacBook and not have it cripple the performance.
I think they should give it a few years and see what happens. It smells a lot like the same argument that used to be thrown against Firefox when it had only been out a little while versus. IE's market share.
Look where that wound up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude. Dude.
If you're going to try to make a point about how Flash is on the way out, it's best not to talk about how you just adopted it yourself.
Lies, damned lies, and web statistics? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm really curious how Silverlight got to 51% unless it's a default install for Windows 7 or something of the sort. So far I've only seen it in the wild three times: Photosynth, the Feynmann Lectures (posted by MS...), and some random video at MSNBC or similar news site. I don't even really know what it does, so how is it at 51%? I'm really not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
And to generalize a bit, what do statistics like this actually say? I promise you my parents don't know what Flash is, although they've probably seen plenty of irritating animated ads. The numbers they quote for Apple and Flash are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but based on their numbers for Silverlight versus the apparent usage of Silverlight, I'm having a tough time deciding what to take away from this article.
Re:Lies, damned lies, and web statistics? (Score:5, Informative)
You need it for Netflix streaming. I know that's the only reason I have it installed on two of my computers, and that's the only thing it's used for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Never again (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Slashdot,
Please do not ever make me picture Steve Jobs naked again.
Thank you.
My numbers are different (Score:5, Insightful)
Silverlight : p (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I'm not a Netflix user, so Silverlight is certainly dead for me. I still have to find a web site that uses it. Microsoft is being succesful in getting it installed in most Windows computers (something they can't do by default because of legal concerns), but they aren't being very succesful in getting web sites to actually use it.
Re:Silverlight : p (Score:4, Interesting)
Silverlight may be a Microsoft product, but it is way better than Flash on my OS X machine. MS may be some sort of boogyman, but they managed to do with Silverlight what Adobe has failed or can't be bothered to do with Flash - make it work well on something other than Windows, which is amusing since I didn't think MS would care about making it work well on the Mac. Certainly less than Adobe should care about decent flash performance.
Quite a lot of people use meth, too (Score:4, Informative)
Flash sucks even on real computers, I don't get why people get so worked up about this. Flash can die in a fire. A *poo* fire.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My laptop has been sitting here on this article for a while, and I had some other pages open in the background and a VM running windows downloading some games to play.
I pick it up and its piping hot ... like it gets after running some hard core games. Gah, that stupid VM is roasting CPU, freaking Windows ... start top to see whats going on and cofirm ... what? The VM isn't even on the screen its so far down the process list?
Whats eating CPU? WebKitPlugin ... i.e. FREAKING FLASH.
Close the one web page wi
would-be emporer (Score:5, Insightful)
the would-be emperor isn't even wearing any clothes.
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but it seems like a failed attempt to be clever. "It's like the emperor's new clothes, except this time... HE ISN'T EVEN WEARING ANY CLOTHES!" He's not wearing clothes in the original story.
Flashblock (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't buy the analysis. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have an iphone. I use it for, oh, a good five or ten percent of my browsing. If that. ... But if a site doesn't work on it, I tend to stop going to that site even when I'm on a different browser. Because I had a bad experience and I didn't like it.
It doesn't matter how many page hits are iOS; it matters how many page hits are from users who use iOS enough of the time to notice that your page didn't work from their mobile browser.
LOL (Score:4, Interesting)
HTML5 video isn't there yet. For starters, Firefox doesn't support H.264, which is the de facto video streaming codec at the moment. Even if it wasn't, Theora doesn't hold a candle to it and seems to be in the middle of growing pains. VP8 is coming, but it isn't here yet. HTML5 YouTube doesn't work all the way yet. Worse still, differences in CPU performance with HTML5 when compared to Flash have been shown [gizmodo.com] to be negligible. (In fact, some of the stats on that page show that Flash 10.1 is more efficient with its CPU utilization.) Worst, and most importantly, of all, tons upon tons of people are still on IE6, which doesn't support HTML5.
I think we all agree that, on paper, HTML5 is a great idea and will do more to unite a powerful web experience with the convenience of mobile computing. In practice, however, it's still very nascent and will take a while before it supplants Flash, et. al. And I guarantee you that Adobe will be on top of that (unless they're stupid and become a numb bystander to their own death).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse still, differences in CPU performance with HTML5 when compared to Flash have been shown to be negligible. (In fact, some of the stats on that page show that Flash 10.1 is more efficient with its CPU utilization.)
And in other studies, spaghetti is faster than purple. HTML5 is a standard, not an implementation. Flash may or may not be faster than a given browser's HTML5 video codec, but I'd be willing to bet you can find a different browser that would demonstrate the opposite results.
Reading comprehension fail (Score:3, Informative)
Steve Jobs listed 6 reasons why Flash wasn't going on iOS devices. In the very last sentence of his thoughts on flash [apple.com] he says:"Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind." While you may not agree with any of the six reasons, Jobs said Flash is archaic is being asserted as the only reason. Also I don't know about anybody else but my understanding is that Jobs has always talked about Flash on mobile devices (Reason#4 was battery life). Even if mobile browsing represents 2.6% of web usage, 1.1% represents 42% of mobile devices. That's a rather large percentage of mobile users.
bah (Score:3, Informative)
What a series of ridiculous assertions.
Silverlight penetration now stands at 51%
What a surprise. Anything bundled with windos and IE will reach numbers like that quickly and easily. If they were to add a cooking recipe to IE, they would reach those numbers with it. In fact, given the de-facto monopoly especially in companies, and that it was lobbied/bought as the only choice if you wanted streaming videos of the last two Olympics, that is a surprisingly low number
while 97% of web surfers have Flash installed
Flash was introduced in 1996. That was 14 years ago. And for many of those years it was a de-facto standard for the loud and colourful parts of the web (games, movie sites, anything that wanted "more interactivity").
And then he compares two plugin technologies to an operating system. Because, you know, 27% of elephants have one leg slightly shorter than the other, which clearly proves that the 32% of plane flights that are delayed is a much too high number!
Jobs makes his claims based on reason & foresi (Score:3, Informative)
What people don't get is that Jobs makes his claims based on reason and foresight, not on current numbers. And what you will have to admit, most of the time he is dead on.
I don't like Apples Content Delivery Lock-In as much as the next guy, but what most people rarely get when talking about Steve Jobs and the things he claims is that this guy actually knows what he is talking about.
He said it time, and time again: Flash got a no-go on the iPhone BECAUSE ADOBE COULDN'T GUARANTEE A MINIMUM PERFORMANCE without hogging the entire iPhone CPU! And given, that is, of course, due to the VM nature of Flash. Ever since the dawn of ActionScript 2, Flash is a plattform, not a mere animation plugin. ... Ok, so this is Slashdot, and most people contiuously ragging on Flash here don't know squat what it actually is all about, but I guess I'll never give up trying.
Get it in to your freaking skull: Steve said it time and time again: NO VMs and no inner frameworks or inner operating systems on the iPhone. Period. End of story. I might emphasise that he was absolutely right with his strategy, hence the bizarly massive return on investment the iPhone line is racking in to this very day. Check out the smooth performance of the iPhone and the third-party apps crutching around on last generation Android Phones to see what I'm talking about.
And I am *not*, I repeat *NOT* an iPhone fanboy - in fact, I am, if at all, most probably going to replace my BlackBerry with an Android Phone whenever the need arises. Given, I might take an iPhone after all, if Android and Ubuntu 10 turn out to be just as prissy as last years versions.
Now go ahead and mod me into oblivion.
Re:Oh thank god (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Firefox users have no need for flash or Ad blockers do they.
I presume you are implying that the reason people use Flash blocking tools is because all Flash content inherently needs to be blocked. This isn't true.
The overly-prevalent mindset on Slashdot that "Flash is evil", "Flash needs to die", and "Flash is only used for bad things" is just plain wrong and broken. Flash is used in many places to greatly enhance things beyond what browsers are normally capable of. Games are an obvious example, but other applications such as Google Finance and Amazon's song previews are simple but effective examples. As is usually the case, the technology itself isn't really good or bad, but what people do with it can be. And people, as a rule, are decidedly good at making technology do bad things.
This then leaves the question: Why do people block flash? Almost entirely it falls into two categories:
- Flash is used in the most perverse and annoying advertisements that contain video and audio and which load the CPU unnecessarily
- Flash has security concerns
Consider these. People champion HTML5 as some kind of messiah which will bring the end to Flash's evil reign. Okay, what would that result in? I'll give you a hint: HTML5 blockers. Why? Because soon we'll transition to:
- HTML5 is used in the most perverse and annoying advertisements that contain video and audio and which load the CPU unnecessarily
- HTML5 has security concerns [slashdot.org]
Personally, Flash doesn't really bother me, but that's largely because it can be controlled. I use NoScript, partially to block Flash, and that tamed beast can do useful work. I think most people who yearn for its demise either don't understand that the void Flash leaves behind will be filled with something (at least as "bad" as Flash, if not worse), or they're just mindless zealots regurgitating Jobs' claims.
Re:Oh thank god (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no. You have it all wrong.
HTML5 is going to save the internet from bloat and security problems.
Also, with HTML5, videos might play in webages if you have the appropriate codec the site's content was encoded with, and your browser can tap into it properly.
It's just like the tag which worked decades ago, but it's new and therefore magically better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh thank god (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh thank god (Score:4, Informative)
Flash does have it's place. I use flash blocker to kill off most of the bad uses and just click the play button for the few good ones. Now if people would just avoid those tasteless flash pages for their websites. Usually I just hit the back button and try another site when I get one of those.
Re:Oh thank god (Score:4, Interesting)
Not too worried about HTML5 'filling the void' myself. NoScript covers a large number of the potentially obnoxious uses already. The same techniques used for blocking Flash object/embed elements can be trivially extended to canvas, video and audio elements. CSS animations can be manipulated in the DOM (or at load time) to either strip them out completely, remove unconstrained animations, or toggle them on and off.
Better yet, though, video and audio elements can just have autoplay disabled. The asset can begin to download, so you don't need to wait, but there's no way for some fuckface web designer to decide their choice about when the video plays trumps yours; no more videos starting up in two or three tabs at once. Very hard to do with Flash, very easy to do with a video element.
Re:Oh thank god (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally, the voice of reason.
I use Flashblock because I want to use Flash services on the web.
The problem isn't flash, it's how certain organisations use flash. This isn't the fault of flash but it is something I have to deal with (have dealt with). If Flash died tomorrow, I guarantee you by Friday (+8 GMT) all the punch the monkey ad's on the web would have been converted to HTML5. Apple and Apple fanboys are benefiting from the same thing that they've always benefited from, lack of negative interest. HTML 5 is better right now because there's no money in writing HTML 5 ad's at the moment, this does not scale. If HTML5 becomes dominant it will become just as unusable as an un-flashblocked browser because Flash is not the motivation for all the Flash annoyances on the web.
Put simply, blame the ad producers, not the conduit they use to display ads.
Re:The Big Guns (Score:4, Insightful)
strong market position.
"strong" is not the criterion. "dominant" is more like it.
You can hardly claim Apple has "dominant" market position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the end of the day it's going to be the FCC settling this debate. Limiting consumer choice is never a good idea when you have a strong market position (like Apple's with mobile devices). The US government tends to frown on that in the long run.
Imply much, say little. That's often a cheap trick to appearing insightful while being difficult to prove wrong. A common strategy to appease the slashbots and win cheap karma points. Unfortunately, your implications are just simply wrong.
1) Why would the FCC get i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jobs is correct, IOS owns the mobile smart phone market.
Really? When did iOS smartphones outstrip Symbian or RIM? And I guess Android passing iOS for new smartphone sales never happened, either...
iOS barely made it to 3rd place, and is now starting to slip down to 4th, probably to be firmly entrenched there sometime early next year, as Android moves into 2nd behind Symbian.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. The issue is that a lot of countries are now spending taxpayer money to create IOS applications, which then end up on a closed, even walled platform. All this because those in charge believe the Apple hype and think that 90% of the people are using an iPoney. And this is not a Good Thing (tm). Reality Distortion at its finest. I will never switch to an Iponey due to its closed nature, however this won't stop my government and many government funded organisations to throw money at Apple oriented produc