Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Flash Support Confirmed For Android 2.2

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-it's-so-much-easier-to-just-write-a-rant dept.

Cellphones 282

farble1670 writes "In an interview with the New York Times, Google's Andy Rubin confirmed that Android 2.2 will have support for Flash 10.1. Quoting: '[Rubin] promised that full support for Adobe’s Flash standard was coming in the next version of Android, code-named Froyo, for frozen yogurt (previous Android releases were called Cupcake, Donut, and Eclair, and are represented outside Building 44 on the Google campus with giant sculptures of the desserts). Sometimes being open "means not being militant about the things consumers are actually enjoying," he said.'"

cancel ×

282 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Flash is trash that needs to be taken out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056200)

Don't buy Apple, but do take out the trash.

Re:Flash is trash that needs to be taken out (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056574)

I wouldn't call Flash a trash - thanks to FlashBlock/AdBlock I have little of the problem others are complaining about.

Though it seems that in my future Android phone I would have one more thing to disable right away.

Re:Flash is trash that needs to be taken out (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056994)

I wouldn't call Flash a trash - thanks to FlashBlock/AdBlock I have little of the problem others are complaining about.

Though it seems that in my future Android phone I would have one more thing to disable right away.

Screw flash.
I'd settle for an e-mail client that can move messages between folders [google.com] .

thats nice but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056210)

until the OEM's push it out, it will not be taken up for existing handset owners. We are in the hands of the OEM not Google.

Re:thats nice but (4, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056276)

This isn't the iPhone. There are other [cyanogenmod.com] options [openeclair.org] available.

Re:thats nice but (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056570)

But can you install them on any Android phone? Which I think is what he was after.

To me it seems like Android is mostly open-source for the phone manufacturer to modify and do whatever they want to as long as Google get control over the users data and platform.

That's good and all for them.

But personally I would had wanted something which was open for me as user, with upgradeable and tweakable installations.

I don't know if drivers are an issue at all but if they are I would had wanted the phone manufacturer to send their patches back to Google which would had added them to their source.

Beyond that I just want a phone not controlled by the vendor with an easy to replace firmware so that I can just build the latest android version and put it on the phone, eventually with any hacks or tweaks I want.

AFAIK this isn't the current situation and hence as far as being a user goes the openness doesn't have much of a benefit at all.

I don't own an Android phone so I may have understood things wrong, when it comes to replacing "firmwares" on the phone I assume in some cases that may make you lose vendor-specific software (highly likely), be hard or worked against by the phone manufacturer (no vendor supplied solution, lack of drivers/phone knowledge, signed and eventually encrypted firmware.)

Re:thats nice but (4, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056958)

But can you install them on any Android phone? Which I think is what he was after.

If you can flash the device, then yes, you can install them on any phone. It's a replacement of the OS.

There are websites that tell you how to get in to the various rom-flash modes for each phone.

A lot of the stuff they are doing, though, can be done with apps (including tethering for almost all devices and carriers), so I'm not sure what the point is, really. They do have kernel tweaks, but I'm not sure they're worth it.

Re:thats nice but (1, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056584)

.. oh, and regarding flash:

Yeah, flash _is_ trash. And I thank Apple for helping us getting rid of flash dependency but as long as it's needed to access all the web I don't wanna be without it.

One man uninstalling flash won't stop websites from using it.

Re:thats nice but (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056668)

Flash doesn't things you just can't do with the web using any other technology.

Once HTML5 has matured enough to compete, it'll be an option. But for now, HTML5 is practically vaporware.

Re:thats nice but (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056684)

haha, Flash doesn't things

I think that was Freudian.

Re:thats nice but (2, Interesting)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056980)

There are a lot of things Flash does that HTML5 will never do.

What Jobs really wants is to replace Flash with Cocoa (since he knows HTML5 and JavaScript will never be good enough) so he can sell you all the dev tools and get royalties on any third party tools.

What's the motto that is so selectively applied? Follow the Money?

Take that. (1)

arcelios (1244426) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056222)

Take that, Jobs.

Hackers have a new window (1)

philpalm (952191) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056250)

If Jobs is right, then hackers will be able to hack a "droid" thru flash.

Re:Hackers have a new window (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056300)

Still largely dependent on a kernel exploit i guess..

Re:Hackers have a new window (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056428)

Damn straight! Let's hope he bans flash in OS X as well!

Re:Hackers have a new window (3, Insightful)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056432)

Yawn. The same mantra was repeated again and again when iPhone was introduced and disallowed you to install native applications while you could do that on Windows Mobile and Symbian. According to Jobs native applications were the tool of devil and could bring down the whole GSM network.

Guess what, there were no hackers to attack both systems then, there are none now. And the GSM networks somehow survived.

Re:Hackers have a new window (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056506)

That's because all applications for the iPhone are signed by apple.

Re:Hackers have a new window (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056546)

if that does happen, and it's somewhat likely, google will end up with some egg on their face.

And if they're feeling REALLY ballsy, they'll put an adobe PDF viewer on the 'droid too.

Flash, Adobe Reader, and Word/Excel have really been the document exploits of choice for quite some time. Anyone have any hard numbers on percent of document exploits? (Explorer needs an Honorable Mention here I think too)

Normally I'd say "sandbox it", but the flash VM just doesn't work that way. True, properly implemented, it can't get outside the VM's sandbox, but do you really want flash apps stealing data from each other? I think google is going to find there's too much opportunity for evil. Unless they can pull off a new instance for each applet, which is going to be all kinds of trouble.

Re:Hackers have a new window (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056576)

If they're at all sane, they'll use Sumatra PDF, not adobe reader.

Re:Hackers have a new window (1)

Vexor (947598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057240)

Ah, but is "Do no Evil" the same as presenting "Opportunity for Evil"? We'll see how Google handles it.

Re:Hackers have a new window (0)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056878)

thru isn't a word.

Re:Take that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056318)

Jobs loses this, we all lose.

Don't buy Apple if you wish, but stick a fork in Flash.

Re:Take that. (3, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056494)

Jobs loses this, we all lose.
Don't buy Apple if you wish, but stick a fork in Flash.


I won't deny that Flash is not everything we would want it to be, but Jobs obviously envisions a platform that is patented and locked down to the exclusion of all competitors. At least Flash has the merit of being multi-platform. On that basis alone, Jobs can go get fucked.

Disclaimer: typed on a second-hand MacBook. Some of Apple's ideas and hardware are great, but Steve Jobs is a nasty piece of work, and whoever donated his liver should have been retrospectively aborted.

Re:Take that. (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056716)

[...] Jobs obviously envisions a platform that is patented and locked down to the exclusion of all competitors.

Game console companies do precisely that and few complain. In fact they are even worse because they require involvement of large publishers and indies are often intentionally excluded.

At least Flash has the merit of being multi-platform.

Java also has a merit of being multi-platform and look at its advances (or lack of them) on desktop.

As soon as efficiency becomes a requirement (and mobile phones are quite demanding in e.g. battery life department) all generic multi-platform toolkits become a burden.

They make life of software developers easy (who are few) by negatively affective experience of users (who are many). I love that as software developer, but hate as a user. And more often I find myself on the "user" side.

Jobs can go get fucked.

I wouldn't go that far, but I think that he should retire from the top Apple position and become more of in-house visionary, concentrating on design and accessibility issues, where he also excels.

Re:Take that. (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056790)

Game consoles are not a general purpose information/work/entertainment device.

Then play games, some of them have very basic communication systems but to compare a game console to a smartphone is ridiculous.

That said, I'm all for more open game consoles but they're not a good comparison.

Re:Take that. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057112)

Game consoles are not a general purpose information/work/entertainment device.

Then play games

Game consoles play major label games, not games in general. The only console that comes remotely close to the iPhone App Store model is the XNA environment on Xbox 360.

Re:Take that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056452)

Haha. If this was Google or Ubuntu rallying against Flash all you slashdotters wouldn't care that Flash was not supported by whatever platform.

Stick Apple into the mix and you would rather see Flash succeed even when Apple is promoting the standards you guys would rather have.

Hilarious. The lengths you will go to just to be anti-Apple.

Re:Take that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056544)

I disagree with Mr Jobs about most things, but not on this. Flash should be taken out into the back alley and put out of our misery.

Maybe good... maybe bad (2, Interesting)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056244)

I hope it doesn't turn out that Flash is the x86 code of the Internet age.

While I dislike Apple's my-way-or-the-highway approach, I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web. This will be interesting to see what happens with Flash, given the growing gap between devices that support it and those that don't.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (4, Insightful)

ThoughtMonster (1602047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056340)

...and how is .h264 an open standard, again?

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056478)

H.264 is open ... open to anyone willing to pay Steve for a license.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056556)

You have a terrible misspelling of Qualcomm there.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

ray_mccrae (78654) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056540)

because it's made available under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, see Open Standard [wikipedia.org] , as opposed to Open Source [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056660)

reasonable and non-discriminatory being very subject to debate, of course.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (4, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057102)

You know .mp3 was made available under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms - at first. Once it was popular the IP owners started putting on the squeeze. At the very beginning .mp3 licenses were pretty much free. Not so any more.

According to Wikipedia, only the IETF and ITU-T refer to their standards as "open standards". Everybody else just calls them standards, even though they all require the reasonable and non-discriminatory terms of these so-called "open" standards, because that's what they are - standards. The only reason they are open is because you have to lay them out when you apply for the patents. Pretty much all definitions of the word "standard" require reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Else they can't be a standard, by definition.

Hey guess who owns the rights to the h.264 standards? Why, it's the ITU-T! This "Open Standard" stuff is just smokescreen to trick the Open Source proponents into feeling like they aren't getting screwed over by these corporations. An "Open Standard" is absolutely no different than any other official industry standard. It's not really that much different than de-facto standards either, their openness and wide-use is what tends to make them standards in the first place.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056842)

It's a published, documented format, which anyone can implement. There already is an open-source implementation of an encoder and decoder [I believe].

However, some people confuse 'open' with 'free'. The h.264 is covered by certain patents, the owners of which have joined together into a patent pool and have decided on charging for use of h.264 in certain specific circumstances.

To say another format is more open just because nobody has asserted any patent claims against it, seems kind of bizarre to me.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057158)

However, some people confuse 'open' with 'free'. The h.264 is covered by certain patents, the owners of which have joined together into a patent pool and have decided on charging for use of h.264 in certain specific circumstances.

I'm confused about what makes the ITU-T's standards open in the first place, they are absolutely no different than any other official standard in any other industry. Even de-facto standards tend to have the same aspects as these "open" standards.

It's like if the Open Source community just called themselves the Software Community, and some guy came along and had the bright idea to say "Yeah, that stuff's great, but you should use my software because it's 'open'." Everybody else's software in the community is open too, but somehow he's the only guy who gets to call it that.

Seriously, I'd like to know what makes the IETF and ITU-T's Open Standards (they are, after all, the only organizations who use the term) different from any other industrial standard. I honestly can't tell, it must be a hell of a lot more subtle than the difference between closed source and open source, because I don't see it at all.

I personally think it's just another marketing gimmick, and I'm surprised they've gotten away with it for so long.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057226)

For follow up, and because the licensing terms are not publicly available, here is the FSF's collection of information about the h.264 patent license:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/h264-patent-license [fsf.org]

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (0)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056904)

...and how is .h264 an open standard, again?

In every way that matters. [wikipedia.org]

Don't confuse [patents vs OSS vs Free Software vs Software that costs nothing] with [open standards vs proprietary closed standards, or no standards].

Flash is a closed standard. But even if it was and open standard, H.264 would still beat it quite handily in video quality and file size (bandwidth). H.264 delivers video quality superior to Flash and with less bandwidth. Also, you can't develop an application in H.264... it's just a video codec and not an entire bulging, proprietary, and closed platform.

Ask yourself this: if you were shopping for a keyboard, would you prefer a product that was designed to be a keyboard, and does nothing else but serve as a keyboard, or would you be looking for it to do a bunch of other things to, like have a built in calculator, fan, cassette deck, radio, toothbrush, magnifying glass, tiny circular saw and oil filter wrench? Maybe the metaphor isn't spot on, but the point is Flash not only isn't suited for video delivery (any more), it was designed for another purpose, as a development platform. And as brilliant as it seems to saturate the web with a video plug in that is a door for the whole platform, and Adobe, as wrong headed as they were with this, did a fantastic job of shoehorning Flash into nearly every video delivery site, the problem is there were ulterior motives. Adobe used subterfuge to distribute a platform no one wanted nor do most realize they have (most think it's just for video). This kind of pisses me off, especially because Flash, for the most part, is so painful to behold (FUCK, there's something happening here... and I CAN"T STOP IT.... AH MAKE IT STOP... it's that kind of angst, something inserted before my eyes and I'm powerless to stop it).

But beyond Flash video, which is anathema to anybody that isn't blind, there isn't any issue with Flash. It is, it turns out, a neat little platform. However, there's no good reason to use it for video delivery. NONE. If Adobe would cease their video crusade, and just let Flash spread by it's own merits, maybe even open the standard, Flash would find it's true niche, and would eventually get rolled into htm6 or whatever. Unfortunately, Adobe is going to let Flash go down with video (and to some extent, the iPhone, iTouch and iPad).

If flash had not been used as a video delivery system, I have no doubt it would be supported by the Apple devices. But since it's only used for video (99.99% of the time), there's no reason to have it there, and plenty of reason not to.

sorry if I got off the subject a little there... now I get off my soap box, with a "good luck" to flash devs, and a word of advice: "run from video delivery... run as fast as you can... it's going to kill your platform."

H.264 badgers? (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057146)

Flash is a closed standard. But even if it was and open standard, H.264 would still beat it quite handily in video quality and file size (bandwidth).

Would a vector animation like Badgers [badgerbadgerbadger.com] really be smaller as H.264? The closest contender here involves scripting a <canvas>.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (4, Insightful)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057152)

Keep up, it's not Flash vs h.264, it's Flash vs Javascript and HTML5. Video format is not at question here. You're looking for the h.264 vs Theora war, that's in a different article.

Apple being douchey about video formats doesn't change the fact that they are fully supporting open web scripting standards.

WTF Are You Babbling About? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056346)

"I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web"

Tell us you're being sarcastic...

No one could possibly be stupid enough to take Steve Jobs' rambling tirades against 'teh Flash' as some sort of effort to support 'open standards'.

Flash allows developers and users to freely bypass Apple's tollbooth for content.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056360)

This will be interesting to see what happens with Flash, given the growing gap between devices that support it and those that don't.

Most porn sites use it for their videos (so, I hear), so I don't think Flash will be going anywhere.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056376)

While I dislike Apple's my-way-or-the-highway approach, I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web.

Like only supporting H.264? I guess that's "open" to licensees... I don't get it. Why can't they just allow the browser to use whatever codecs are installed on the computer? I guess I'll be sticking to HTML4 and the good ol' object tag.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (3, Informative)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056412)

I recommend you read arstechnica's rebuttal of Steve Jobs's claims. Pot, meet kettle indeed. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/pot-meet-kettle-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars [arstechnica.com]

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056548)

That wasn't a rebuttal from ars, it was written by the operations manager of the Free Software Foundation. It helps to frame it properly, since that guy has a definite desire to see a proprietary platform like iPhone fail.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056702)

It's weak, because the rebuttal talks about H.264 not being open, but Steve Jobs didn't claim it was, he called it an industry standard, not an open standard. The letter from Steve Jobs is actually really clear, it does not state that iPhone OS is open, or that Xcode, the iPhone SDK or the built-in apps are open. It talks about the technologies you can use in Mobile Safari being open (literally HTML5, CSS and JavaScript). He also calls H.264 an industry standard, not an open standard.

Reading the letter as it is, I don't think there is much for the FSF to rebute (is that a word?). Of course there is enough to argue (about the iPhone OS being closed, or H.264 having patents), but as a response to the letter the FSF just brings up new arguments.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (4, Insightful)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057074)

It's weak, because the rebuttal talks about H.264 not being open, but Steve Jobs didn't claim it was, he called it an industry standard, not an open standard.

And Flash isn't an industry standard? When all the industry leaders - and nearly all the industry followers - support it, it seems to me to be a de-facto industry standard.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1, Redundant)

Arguendo (931986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057126)

I recommend you read arstechnica's rebuttal of Steve Jobs's claims.

I want my five minutes back. This editorial is terrible. Jobs made a distinction between proprietary standards for content on the web and proprietary tools to access that content. This editorial completely glosses over that distinction and argues that all proprietary software is bad. Seriously? I'm all for touting the benefits of open source and free software but there's a place for proprietary software as well. If you don't like the iphone's proprietary software, buy another phone. It's not like there aren't plenty of options.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (5, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056430)

While I dislike Apple's my-way-or-the-highway approach, I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web.

The problem I have is while they dress it up as sticking to their guns on open standards, their true motive is they want people to write to the proprietary technology of iPhone apps instead of flash apps. They make legitimate criticisms of Adobe as tying up the web in a proprietary technology while at the same time clearly moving to punish any developers that would want to target iPhone+others using cross-platform tools rather than limited and proprietary iPhone only apps.

I can't get excited over the concept of rooting for either Adobe or Apple in their little pissing contest. I dislike what both want the industry to look like.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (0, Troll)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056586)

You clearly did not read the letter from jobs. He does discuss the proprietary nature of iPhone OS. But he also covers why it would be bad for apple users to have middleware design tools become popular -- based on their past experience.

It's also worth noting that you can create amazing, open mobile web apps that work great on iPhones and iPads and many other devices. You can thank apple's open source work on WebKit for a big part of that.

Combined with the performance issues, crashing issues, and lack of a good touch interface for Flash, what argument can really be made in favor of it on mobile devices?

Write it in HTML5, JavaScript and CSS and move on with your life.

Here's A Better Idea Dipshit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056622)

We're all adopting and developing for free and open Android devices that we can do whatever the fuck we want with.

Go fuck yourself you piece of shit.

 

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (2, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057166)

all standards pertaining to the web should be open

Note that qualification in Steve's message. There has been noise about flash as an 'app' platform beyond 'just' web, and that is something Apple has a *lot* to lose on. Longer term, perhaps HTML5/WebGL/CSS/Javascript poses a long-term threat to their 'apps', but Flash represents a more clear and imminent threat.

Apple is in some ways worse than Microsoft (perhaps because Apple is allowed to get away with it) when it comes to standards. It would be wise to keep in mind the motivations of the players as they present their rhetoric to the world.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056988)

The main reason that you have an app for everything in the Apple ecosystem, and the appliance status of Ipad is because that way content creators can better control consumption of content: no save page for offline viewing, everything is harder to pirate etc. That way they can lure in big publishers. On the other hand the amount of available content will lure in more users. And they're all locked to the Ipad. So Android is catering to a completely different market. (Traditional hackers/geeks.) And that's why they will coexist just fine. And that's why Apple's main competitor is the Kindle.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056998)

So what Apple is doing is practically soft DRM. That way they can avoid bad publicity and remain Slashdot compatible.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057140)

When the iPhone was released it only supported 3rd party apps via Web applications. You probably complained about that.

Now you are complaining that they allow Native apps.

Possibly you just like to complain.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057200)

Just cheer for the pissing contest. Maybe it will cost them both a lot of money. A happy thought!

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056756)

The only Apple products that don't support Flash are the iPhone and the iPad. The only reason that those things don't support Flash is because they are underpowered, but Apple doesn't want to admit that so they lie and claim that not supporting Flash was part of their plan all along.

It's so transparent that you'd have to be brain damaged to not see it.

Woo-hoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056896)

Having Flash makes it easier to enjoy porn! ;-)

CAPTCHA cruddy --that describes Slashdot's new captcha system.

Cr4zY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056252)

good articla man tnks ;)

Cr4zY | nterAktif Web Günlüü [cr4.org]

Suck On That Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056262)

You massive tool.

Verizon (1)

RafaelAngel (249818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056268)

He should of asked about the refusal of Verizon to carry the g-phone.

Re:Verizon (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056328)

He should of asked about the refusal of Verizon to carry the g-phone.

Verizon has contractual obligations and a considerable advertising investment in the Motorola Droid. *Every* service provider makes such deals, there's nothing nefarious going on other than standard business practices.

Besides, Verizon sucks, why would you want to sign up with them anyway?

There's a map for that (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057178)

Besides, Verizon sucks, why would you want to sign up with them anyway?

A carrier is useless if you get zero bars. Some people find that Verizon Wireless has better 3G coverage than AT&T and T-Mobile.

Re:Verizon (2, Informative)

bconway (63464) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057144)

The HTC Incredible, release two days ago on Verizon, is almost identical in spec and function to the Nexus One. It's already sold out in many areas and their online store.

Enjoying? (2, Funny)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056270)

More like forced to enjoy due to lack of suitable replacement currently. Flash sucks, programming flash sucks, Youtube and cie are awesome but require flash to work. I agree (for different reason as Jobs) that flash shouldn't be encouraged. I'm not too excited at the idea of having run on my phone. Now section 3.3.1 is a whole other ball game of dick move by Apple. A flash to native iPhone tool or any other language X to native iPhone app are useful is an stupid money grab by Apple. But that's their choice, I'll keep enjoying my android phone and try to avoid helping pollute the web by never developing with Flash. Yes my site looks like it was made in 1995 why do you ask?

Re:Enjoying? (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056282)

And yes I know HTML 5 is on the way (I'm working on projects that make use of it right now) but it's not their yet.

Re:Enjoying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056814)

but it's not their yet.

yeah, but is it there?

Adobe vs Apple (3, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056274)

In the left corner we have Adobe, who demonstrates the power of the web enhanced with cross-platform plugins, but makes little effort to cooperate on forming the albeit openly published Flash VM spec and makes a fairly unstable reference implementation (not helped by the lack of process isolation in browsers).

In the right corner we have Apple, whose proposal of the extra-DOM canvas element to troll Adobe (rather than following the example of SVG) further complicated the monolithic monster that is W3C's HTML standard.

In the centre we have consumers, who get to enjoy that there are so many standards to choose from.

Why? (1)

ZipprHead (106133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056316)

I can understand from an operating system point of view why you would want to support Flash.

But damn, I have no interest in having Flash run on my cell phone.

Flash standard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056354)

"Full support for Adobe’s Flash standard"? Hey dumbass, Flash isn't part of the Web it's a godamn plug-in.

Now get off my lawn!

Hey Google (4, Insightful)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056384)

I'm thrilled that I'm able to use whatever software I want on Android. The problem is, I don't actually want Flash - I just wanted the ability to decide for myself.

So, that's great that you will be supporting it, but please let me turn it off or uninstall it from my phone.

Thanks.

Oh Shut Up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056476)

Dude, give the act a rest.

You aren't impressing anyone.

Re:Hey Google (1)

Tak_1 (1684082) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057028)

I had been thinking of getting an Android Phone after my iPhone contract expires, but if they are going to force feed me flash, no thanks. I have been using not one, not two, but THREE Firefox plug ins to keep Flash from screwing up my laptop. I do NOT want this experience in my phone.

So unless the Android will have a simple way to remove flash, I'm going to have to stick with an iPhone. The dancing, talking, pop up, flash ad people who make our browsing lives hell will just have to find another way to choke my phone with unwanted content. Flash is a disease.

Re:Hey Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057086)

Sounds like you're a computing incompetent. I've never had a singe problem with flash on any of my machines. Your ignorance is the disease.

Choice is good (3, Insightful)

gun26 (151620) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056414)

Unlike a certain dictatorial and litigious cellphone manufacturer, Google is giving their users a choice. Flash haters certainly have reason for their dislike, but I think the decision of whether to use it or not should be left in the hands of users and webmasters, where it belongs. Good move on this, Google.

I for one... (2, Informative)

greatgreygreengreasy (706454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056440)

...can't WAIT to play FARMVILLE on my PHONE!!! instead of click click click click click I'll get to tap tap tap tap tap tap!

My Thoughts (3, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056460)

To be honest I'm rather surprised it's taken this long for Adobe to release a portable version of Flash for smartphones. I think this speaks to how cozy and lazy Adobe had become with their control of the market. Jobs's remarks were indeed hypocritical, but if he is to praised for anything it's for lighting a fire under Adobe's cushion.

I also think Jobs's "letter about Flash" was far from coincidental. Now that his competitors will have a defining feature that makes their smartphone experience significantly more enjoyable, Jobs either had to relent or push on with an self-inflicted platform deficiency. The letter was just him setting down the battle lines.

Competition is great, but Apple's use of their control of the iPhone hardware to control the iPhone software market is anti-competitive, and I for one am happy to see Google stick it to them.

Re:My Thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056762)

The N900 already has a version a flash.

Re:My Thoughts (2, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056880)

Not only has Flash been available on other smartphones (Windows Mobile, N900, etc.) but it's also been available on Android phones with the HTC Sense UI. Now it'll be in every stock 2.2 phone, which will cover hopefully all newer Android-running phones (aka ones running 2.1 now)

Flash-Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056524)

That's the main reason flash is good on cellphones.

So sad (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056528)

This was my comment on the previous /. story about Flash not going to be supported under iPhone, moded 'Troll' as you see. [slashdot.org] My current comment is the exact opposite of that one.

This is a disaster! Flash must be made into a pariah or maybe just a piranha of the Internet. It became a de-facto standard for playing video in a browser and supplanted development of an open standard, which was so late to arrive obviously, it only has appeared in html5. It is insane, if the rest of the Internet was based on similar technology, closed down, depending on a single company, there would have been no Internet, and now Android doing this (probably just to show itself as a more 'competitive' platform to iPhone).

I just had a tear I think, well somewhere on the inside of my mind... :(

How about websockets? (1)

gorehog (534288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056532)

When will they start putting the current webkit builds with websocket support on these devices?

What about the little guy? (3, Insightful)

sparkydevil (261897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056562)

It's extremely annoying to see Mr Jobs deny me access to customers based on his idea of perfection.

As a small restaurant/club owner, I spent a lot of time creating a Flash-based website so that it would be more appealing to customers than an HTML site. Is Mr Jobs really suggesting that I should now create an app for my business instead?

Re:What about the little guy? (1)

Sebilrazen (870600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056648)

Yes, or a well styled non-Flash using website.

Re:What about the little guy? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056680)

He's suggesting that you create an html5 standards-compliant website. I suggest you do so as well.

Re:What about the little guy? (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056734)

As a small restaurant/club owner, I spent a lot of time creating a Flash-based website so that it would be more appealing to customers than an HTML site. Is Mr Jobs really suggesting that I should now create an app for my business instead?

So, let me get this straight: instead of doing the rational thing to maximize the number of users who could benefit from the content of your site by first presenting the content with the most broadly supported subset of HTML before building a "premium" presentation of the content that would be accessible to a smaller set of users using a technology that is less universal like Flash, you excluded many potential customers by building a flash-only site that they could not use from the many web-enabled devices (including the iPhone) that don't have Flash, and you blame Steve Jobs for limiting the reach of your app by not correcting your decision by bringing Flash to the iPhone?

Maybe you need to consider that the problem here isn't with Steve Jobs.

Re:What about the little guy? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057176)

using a technology that is less universal like Flash

Flash is available on something like 99% of all computers, and that final percentage is mostly people who are actively avoiding Flash or using browsers that don't support HTML5 in any case.

you blame Steve Jobs for limiting the reach of your app by not correcting your decision by bringing Flash to the iPhone?

Something like 75% of all mobile devices will support Flash. Yeah, it's really his problem that iPhone users are going to be left in the cold.

Steve Jobs needs to wake up and realize that there are just some things that can't be done without Flash. HTML5 is NOT a drop-in solution. In fact, in many ways, it's considerably worse than Flash.

Which means that there's a good chance that his website simply will never be able to work without the features that Flash brings to the table. And in that case, you're basically telling him that yes, he should code a custom iPhone application to get that final percent-of-a-percent of an audience that uses the iPhone to browse the web, since there's no other way to duplicate his existing, fully functional code.

Re:What about the little guy? (1)

poly_pusher (1004145) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056864)

Suggesting? No... Not if you want it to run on the Iphone or Ipad. The irony is that I agree with many of the statements made by Apple and Jobs about Flash. HTML 5 is much more efficient, particularly on mobile devices. What bothers me is that it is being forced. HTML 5 will win out. Sites that use Flash will steer away from it once they see a benefit, which in the case of web video will be a no brainer. Let the market decide who wins. If this kind of competition doesn't kill Flash it will force Adobe to get their act together. Apple has created a computing device that's in your pocket to help you in your day to day. They associated an app store and began censoring it. Then they come out with the Ipad. A computing device intended to fill a niche between smart phones and primary computers. This device has the same limitations and is attached to the same censored app store and they announce no cross-platform development for the apps in this store. I do not like this trend. Make my phone. Make my phone's OS. Don't tell me what I can and can't have on it.

Re:What about the little guy? (4, Insightful)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056952)

As a small restaurant/club owner, I spent a lot of time creating a Flash-based website so that it would be more appealing to customers than an HTML site.

What makes you think Flash would be more appealing to people visiting your website? When I go to a restaurant's web site I want to see a menu, the hours of operations, and maybe a picture of some of their entrees.

Re:What about the little guy? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057082)

Especially the little guy shouldn't put hundreds of dollars into Adobe Flash Professional to create slow-loading, unsemantic binary blobs and call it a "website". Your customers will be much happier with a snappy search engine optimized standard-compliant HTML page, a good looking CSS stylesheet and maybe some fancy and gracefully degrading Javascript effects as icing on the cake. There are loads of freely available open source content managment systems out there with support for themes which will provide you with exactly this, for no money at all.

another flash article? (3, Funny)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056712)

This is great! Now whenever I need to find out what does or does not support flash, I can just come to flashdot! Seems to be all that's posted here nowadays.

Some of you keep forgetting something... (3, Insightful)

Spencerian (465343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056780)

Flash wasn't built for mobile devices.

If you want it to suck cycles on your desktop or most laptops, that's not a problem, for your PC or Mac has them and electrical power to spare, generally.

But Flash sucks the electrical life out of mobile devices. This isn't theory, it's fact. Take your laptop off AC power and see it die after a few YouTube videos or Flash games.

I'm not against Flash. I'm against it on devices that must be reliable and are built with limited processor and electrical power.

Flash is the Web standard of .NET. It's sloppy. It's developer hasn't made great inroads to optimize it or secure it. It is flexible, but some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen. And only Adobe makes it.-

If Adobe wants to side with another platform for Flash AND make it work, great. But apparently Apple doesn't want to be Adobe's guinea pig and it has every reason not to.

Apple has already dealt before with competitors both inside and out who change their business plan and as a result, leave Apple twisting in the wind. It's good business practice not to let your business become overly dependent on others. Hell, Adobe was in that situation when Apple began to flounder. So why would Apple emulate Adobe in that regard?

As for Flash on the Android? Let's see it, then. What doesn't kill your phone only makes it stronger.

Perhaps Apple will have Billy Dee Williams in for some endorsements, standing over a person with a locked, overheated phone.

" Problem with your Droid? "

You're A Fucking Moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056888)

Fucking great. Now we have to listen to idiots like you running around the Net parroting Jobs stupid talking points.

Go away loser.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something... (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056978)

Flash is the Web standard of .NET.

I'm pretty sure that Silverlight is the Web standard of .NET.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something... (4, Interesting)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056996)

Flash 10.1 uses hardware acceleration for video, so presumably battery life will be longer.
Also, on Adroid, Flash delivers better performance than HTML5/Canvas (http://visualrinse.com/2010/04/15/benchmarking-html5-vs-flash-player-10-1-on-mobile-devices/).

Regarding "some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen" -- nothing springs to mind, care to elaborate? It does have rollover support but that doesn't mean that you have to use it. It has multi-touch support too...

As for security... I can only recall 3 major flaws in the last 5 years; maybe there are more but it's still not more insecure than Java or IE.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057016)

Except this version of flash specifically was designed for mobile devices, so your entire argument is pointless.

Android 1 iPhone 0 (2, Informative)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056794)

I'm looking to buy a new phone this summer to replace my old and slow iPhone 3G. This is one point in Android's favor. Slow, buggy and insecure it may be but at least the consumer has a choice where as Apple is giving us none.

Can It Be Turned Off? (1)

Taliesan999 (305690) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056886)

I don't care if they include it with the OS.... but...

The big question is can it be turned off (or uninstalled), or will users be forced to download flash objects while browsing on their mobile, consuming both bandwidth and CPU (and by extension, battery power).

I have a Flash blocker installed in my browser, simply because MOST flash content doesn't interest me. Before I installed a Flash blocker, Flash was often the single biggest user of CPU and resources while browsing some websites.

Also will they expose the mechanism by which they're allowing Flash into the browser, so additional browser extensions/plugins can be created that can block the Flash content like existing desktop plugins.

What is this "Flash" Google is talking about? (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057246)

Something that's often missed is that "Flash" is a set of various versions and video formats. As I understand it, mobile Flash 10.1 will not support Actionscript 1.0 and 2.0, only giving you Actionscript 3.0. How many websites and games were made in the older format and continue to be?

Not only that... this is weird but according to this chart [appleinsider.com] it won't support H.264 but instead have On2 video format. That would be the guys that Google just bought. Perhaps this is another part of why they're supporting flash.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?