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!

Adobe Flash Player 10.1 Arrives For Android

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the look-what-we-got dept.

Cellphones 273

adeelarshad82 writes "Adobe announced that it has released the final version of Flash Player 10.1 for Google's mobile operating system. The app will be available for download via the Android Market for those users who have Android 2.2 (Froyo) installed on their phones. Devices expected to offer the Android update include the Dell Streak, Google Nexus One, HTC Evo, HTC Desire, HTC Incredible, Droid by Motorola, Motorola Milestone, and Samsung Galaxy S. Flash Player 10.1 was also released to support devices based on Android, BlackBerry, webOS, future versions of Windows Phone, LiMo, MeeGo and Symbian OS, and is expected to be made available via over-the-air downloads and to be pre-installed on smart phones, tablets and other devices in the coming months."

cancel ×

273 comments

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

Calling it now (2, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32654862)

If Apple sees that this increases Android usage, they'll reverse policy on the Flash block, and users everywhere will praise Steve for his insight and timing.

Re:Calling it now (3, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32654948)

If Apple sees that this increases Android usage, they'll reverse policy on the Flash block, and users everywhere will praise Steve for his insight and timing.

And right after that, Apple fans will complain that Android phones are copying Apple's iPhone.

Re:Calling it now (4, Funny)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655006)

This assumes that Adobe then don't tell Steve to go f**k himself.

Re:Calling it now (2, Funny)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655178)

But porn is banned from the iPhone...

Re:Calling it now (2, Funny)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655444)

So Steve's iFilter should filter the fucking email out...

Re:Calling it now (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655212)

Pretty sure that it was Apple telling Adobe where to shove it and not the other way around.

Re:Calling it now (1)

coerciblegerm (1829798) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655262)

No one said otherwise. The point being made is Adobe would likely do the same if Jobs reversed his position on Flash for the iPad/Pod/Phone.

Re:Calling it now (2, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655532)

I doubt it's a valid point - Adobe would do pretty much anything to have Flash on the iDevices. Note the tone of the ads they took out were more in the vein of "work with us" rather than "screw you guys". I wouldn't say Adobe are running scared just because Apple won't play ball, but if they're ignoring the possibility that their technology will become redundant then they're blind indeed. It would take more than just Apple being against them (or else it would take a massive shift in the uptake of Apple products), but if a few more big players scent blood in the air, it could well be their undoing, so it's in their interests to ensure they remain as entrenched as possible on as many platforms as they can right now, even if it did mean ignoring the mean things Apple said about them in the past.

Re:Calling it now (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655688)

Why would Adobe do so? What do they gain at all monetarily or otherwise from blocking Flash from iDevices? If Jobs reversed his position, Adobe would be begging at his feet like good little whores to get Flash on the iDevices as fast as possible.

Re:Calling it now (2, Informative)

NiteShaed (315799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655346)

I really doubt that would happen. These are big corporations, not kids on a playground. Adobe wants flash on every device imaginable, and the iPhone/iPod/iPad represents a significant number of those devices. If Apple reverses itself and says Flash is welcome, then Adobe will jump to have it on their devices. I'm sure the execs at Adobe are and will continue to call Jobs lots of nasty names in the privacy of their offices, but they're not about to give up marketshare if it's offered to them.

Re:Calling it now (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655838)

I'm not saying that Adobe would do it out of petty revenge. If Apple were falling in market share, then why not just leave them to fade away? Would Adobe want a revitalised Apple who could then crap on them all over again?

Re:Calling it now (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655010)

If Apple sees that this increases Android usage, they'll reverse policy on the Flash block, and users everywhere will praise Steve for his insight and timing.

It will double Android usage, as it will now take twice as long to load a web page.

Re:Calling it now (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655634)

Hmm, not sure your metrics are spot on. If we're measuring website hits as an indicator of usage, it would probably decrease usage stats if Flash took twice as long to load, since people would have less time to browse and less inclinaion to do so - and that's assuming Flash is any slower to load, I've not seen any suggestion that it is - okay it can be bloated but so can JavaScript, it's usually performance when it's running (i.e. already loaded) that most people have a problem with. The main issue with loading is that the Flash we see is often being served by ad companies who don't care that the connection is dog slow and the page takes twice as long to load as a result - but that would still be the case if they were serving JavaScript or even static images.

Re:Calling it now (2, Insightful)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655100)

I think their position on Flash is a strategic one. Even if Flash does start performing well some time in the future, the Flash content out there isn't very well adapted to small screens, and it's probably much more difficult to do so with Flash than with normal web standards. Apple wants a good experienec, and they may not be convinced that Flash will give users a good experience even if the performance is reasonably good.

Re:Calling it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655266)

That's why the Android devices are getting ever larger, with larger screens. Bring on the scientific-calculator-sized phones, baby!

Re:Calling it now (5, Insightful)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655562)

Your still accepting the company line on Flash?

If it is about the tiny screens of phones then why is there no Flash on the iPad.

No, there are a variety of strategic reasons why Apple doesn't want Flash on their products. For example, Apple wants to force as much materials as possible (games, video, news, etc) into the app store or iTunes. This allows them to take a cut of any revenue and block it if they don't like it.

Flash goes against that strategy. For example, it allows DRM'ed media and lots of cross-platform games to be delivered via the web, independent of Apple.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Flash is as efficient as native code, but then again, neither is JavaScript. Sometimes we need to make trade-offs.

Re:Calling it now (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655656)

There's plenty of bad iPhone experiences out there too. And there are plenty of well-written flash games and applications. Apple's suggested alternative to Flash? Javascript and SVG! LOL, give me a break.

Re:Calling it now (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655730)

Some might say that just point blank denying the user access is not a great user experience either. We all know Flash is an awful technology that deserves to die soon and painfully, if you're unfortunate enough to be in the position that you have to use it, might there not be a case to say it would be better to at least have the option, even if Apple flag up a big disclaimer saying "the page you're about to use contains Flash which is not designed for mobile usage and has known usability and performance issues, continue? Y/N", or bury it somewhere in a menu so you have to really need it before you go enable it.

Re:Calling it now (0, Troll)

ahankinson (1249646) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655102)

Apple has pretty much said that it will anyway. The only reason they've given that they don't allow Flash on the iDevices is that it a) sucks battery life and b) Adobe has not yet released a mobile version that they felt performed acceptably on their systems. I'm sure if Adobe gets their ass in gear and releases a version of Flash that actually works on a mobile device, Apple will include it.

Re:Calling it now (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655240)

"I'm sure if Adobe gets their ass in gear and releases a version of Flash that actually works on a mobile device, Apple will include it."

Uhhhh... Even the title of the summary says this. Unless your definition of "work[ing]" means "perfect". So, we should expect a press release from Apple any minute, right?

Re:Calling it now (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655110)

I just hope 10.1 works better than Flash 10 does.

I've been reading all kinds of complaints from PowerPC Mac users, even those with speedy 2 or 2.5 gigahertz Dual processors, that Flash 10 plays movies like a snail through molasses. Most of them had to downgrade to Flash 9 just to watch youtube.com. Apparently F10 was optimized for Intel CPUs and doesn't work right on PPCs.

Re:Calling it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655164)

Good thing that macs have been using intel chips for years now.

Re:Calling it now (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655442)

Anonymous Karma Coward wrote:
Good thing that macs have been using intel chips for years now.

So Mac users should throw-away their PPC machines, even if they are still like new and working perfectly? How un-green of you. Filling-up landfills with perfectly good hardware.

Re:Calling it now (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655474)

P.S.

What would be wiser is for Adobe to make decent software that can run on a PowerPC and play Youtube/Flash 10 video at proper speed, instead of in slow motion.

Re:Calling it now (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655286)

Yeah, how terrible of Adobe to not support 10 year old obsolete computer systems! I mean come on, Apple supports them! Oh wait...

Re:Calling it now (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655642)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Yeah, how terrible of Adobe to not support 10 year old obsolete PowerPC computer systems!

No comment. I just wanted to highlight this. I didn't realize it's been 10 years since PPC Macs stopped being sold? Wow. Amazing. It's too bad you didn't post with your real name, so I could mod you +1 informative.

/end sarcasm

Re:Calling it now (2, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655782)

How about Adobe not supporting non-obsolete computer systems like AMD 64?

  • "Yeah, how terrible of Adobe to not support 10 year old obsolete computer systems! I mean come on, Apple supports them! Oh wait..."

Re:Calling it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655146)

If Apple sees that this increases Android usage, they'll reverse policy on the Flash block

No, it won't. Apple is out to maintain the purity of its platform. It's not going to embrace Flash to gain market share any more that it's going to license OS X for outside hardware.

Re:Calling it now (1)

dogzilla (83896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655230)

If Apple sees that this increases Android usage, they'll reverse policy on the Flash block, and users everywhere will praise Steve for his insight and timing.

No they won't.

Re:Calling it now (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655836)

It's pretty moot anyway - I guess average users won't care because they probably don't even understand what Flash actually is, and power users or people who are in the unenviable position of actually needing flash will have already made their choice (either that they can live without it, or that they need to own a platform that allows it, hobbled as the experience may be). I don't see a newer version swaying people in sufficient numbers to change anyone's position.

Re:Calling it now (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655364)

In politics and business, that's called "leadership". It worked for Bill Gates-- despite the fact that many of the products under his tenure as Microsoft CEO were either bought or copied wholesale from others, he had the admiration of the business community because he had piles of money.

Now, that probably does not describe Gates today, as he's following to some extent the philosophy of Andrew Carnegie. But the influence he wielded was and still is considerable, and he wasn't afraid of using it to get his way as Microsoft CEO-- one wonders whether he'll resist the temptation as philanthropist.

Re:Calling it now (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655650)

"We found a revolutionary new way to display Flash content that won't drain the battery..."

Re:Calling it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655786)

I don't think they will. The reason for that is a stratetic one, they don't like that you could code an app that would work on different platforms and Flash would allow you to do exactly that. This way they can keep the sort of exclusivity that made them so appealing to many people. Yes, I am aware of the fact that HTML 5 allows/will allow you to do many things Flash does as well, but they can't just easily block that.

I think it'll get interesting after Youtube finishes transcoding their videos into WebM :)

Is that all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32654940)

No Hero?

Re:Is that all? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32654962)

That word 'expected' means that it's someone wild-ass guess as to which will get updated with this.

Re:Is that all? (3, Informative)

ElForesto (763160) | more than 4 years ago | (#32654984)

No, and no Moment, G1, Cliq, Backflip, etc. You need a minimum of a Cortex A8-family processor to run Flash and many lower-end and older Android phones just don't pack the horsepower to pull it off.

Suck (2, Insightful)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32654942)

Let the suck begin.

Re:Suck (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655068)

yeah, quite right.

it's about time an apple user showed up and got sucking on steve jobs wrinkled old todger in front of everyone

so whats your take on this then paimen - don't tell me - people don't need or want flash, its just they don't realize it. of course!

is this linked to the idea that only stevey boy knows what we all want? btw, you need some ky there son?

Re:Suck (2, Insightful)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655104)

At least I have the choice whether I want to run Flash on my phone or not - rather than have some guy in a black turtleneck decide for me.

Re:Suck (0, Flamebait)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655512)

Huh, so a discussion about Adobe Flash on Google Android is actually about your hatred for Steve Jobs? Maybe you should see someone about that.

Re:Suck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655528)

Apple have had three years of phone production under their belt and at not point have adobe managed to produce a working plug in for it. They only started to panic when the iPad arrived. Sucks to be them. There's now 3 million devices that aren't infected with adobes molasses and ad promoting software.

Re:Suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655572)

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes someone to sue Adobe or one of their "partners" for burns suffered while handling a handset after watching a Flush movie.

First, we need froyo... (4, Interesting)

knavel (1155875) | more than 4 years ago | (#32654974)

That's great and all, Adobe, but we're all still waiting for Froyo to be released...as an official OTA, or as an official source release :(

Re:First, we need froyo... (0, Troll)

uprise78 (1256084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655140)

But isn't the whole gist of the Android argument on /. that you can download, compile, modify and install it yourself? That's what the whole iPhone is closed/Android is open argument has been for months. You already have FroYo if that is true.

Re:First, we need froyo... (1)

knavel (1155875) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655278)

Technically, yes, an individual could grab the unofficially released source and compile it for themselves. In reality, most people use a specific distro...In my case, I use CyanogenMod, which has announced that it will not start hacking on Froyo code until there's an official source release.

Re:First, we need froyo... (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655252)

An official OTA release is up to your service provider. Google has released the OS already. If you want to bypass your provider and install it directly, you have that option. Otherwise, there is nothing more that Google can do.

Re:First, we need froyo... (1)

knavel (1155875) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655318)

Actually, that's the issue. Google hasn't *officially* released 2.2 Froyo yet in OTA form (for the Nexus One which I have, the OTA is coming directly from Google), or as source code.

They *HAVE* released the 2.2 SDK, but that's for developing apps, which is separate from the OS itself.

Re:First, we need froyo... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655344)

Google has not yet made an official release. They announced the OS though and source has been leaked.

Re:First, we need froyo... (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655438)

Could have sworn I saw an official build for the nexus one... perhaps not.

Re:First, we need froyo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655542)

An official OTA release is up to your service provider. Google has released the OS already. If you want to bypass your provider and install it directly, you have that option. Otherwise, there is nothing more that Google can do.

Fail.

Google controls the OTA for this, not your service provider. That is the point of the unlocked phones. I have been patiently waiting for the OTA of Froyo but am starting to get a little ticked off. On the Google forums a Google employee shows up once a week and posts the same damn thing over and over basically saying Froyo will be ready "shortly". Problem is they have been saying this for 4 weeks now.

how well does it run on hacked Iphones ruining and (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32654978)

how well does it run on hacked Iphones ruining android?

Re:how well does it run on hacked Iphones ruining (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32654994)

It runs as native code through the NDK, not in the Dalvik virtual machine, so I'm going to guess "not at all".

Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawed. (5, Insightful)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32654990)

So, I've tried it on my Nexus One. It seems to play videos ok, but that's about it. You can't really interact with the flash because no flash videos are designed for touch input.

On the BBC news video players you can't control playback because the clickable area on the time-line is far too narrow to hit. You also can't drag anything because this just scrolls the website.

Conclusion: Steve Jobs was right; flash doesn't belong on phones and I'm glad he is killing it, even if he is still an annoying control freak.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655020)

What about general performance? Does it lag as badly as early previews of Flash on Android seem to indicate? Is the Nexus One officially supported by Flash?

Can you zoom in to be able to tap those tiny links/hit areas?

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (3, Informative)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655246)

I'm actually using Beta 3 (the final version doesn't seem to be in the market despite what the article says). It is much better than the first beta and generally isn't too bad.

You *can* zoom in using pinch-to-zoom but it doesn't really help. Even with the controls filling the screen you can't drag, and many controls are just too damn small.

You can also double-tap on the flash to make it fill the screen, which works pretty nicely, but even then you can't drag! (wtf?)

All in all, I don't think anyone could have done a much better job, but the fact is no current flash movies were designed for use on phones, and it shows badly.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (3, Informative)

Kegetys (659066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655152)

> You also can't drag anything because this just scrolls the website.

The N900 has a special "cursor mode" that, when enabled, changes the dragging from scrolling to moving a virtual cursor that allows sending drag events to the browser (flash or javascript). I'd guess android could have something similar added if it doesn't have it already.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (4, Insightful)

sjonke (457707) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655560)

It's pretty crappy when you have to switch to "virtual cursor" mode in order to interact with a site. That's really going to win users over. Perhaps not such a smart business decision to go with Flash and a write-once-deploy-everywhere strategy?

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655166)

Those are all issues that can and (assuming demand is high enough) will be fixed. If there's a reason that flash won't work on phones its because of battery usage and performance problems. Steve Jobs was still wrong, let the users and developers decide what they want, if flash really can't be made to work then so be it. But there's no valid reason why developers and users can't be allowed to try it out.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655584)

let the users and developers decide what they want

Users "decide" by buying iPhones/iPad or a competitor (or not at all).
Developers "decide" by writing for iOS or Android (or not at all).

It seems that users and developer have "decided" that you are full of shit.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655226)

There are more things in heaven and earth then are dreamed of by your philosophy.

Flash is not just for videos.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655350)

Flash is not just for videos.

Right... but since most flash apps don't even play videos as expected by the masses, properly, with controls and everything, we're a looooooong way away from what most people think of as "real flash working."

BTW, not having things like "cursor mode" different than "zoom mode", while a little limiting to the true geek, is part of what makes Apple's designs accessible to the masses.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655410)

I write dull business apps for a living. When I think "flash support" I think of things like Google Visualization and Flex, not movies.

These are the things that make me want to have Flash on a mobile device.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

JoeF (6782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655428)

At least you have a prerelease of Android 2.2 already. The Nexus One for AT&T doesn't have it yet...

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655564)

Its AT&T... they're other Android phone is still using version 1.6 and has all links to Google replaced with Yahoo. What did you expect?

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655490)

oh dear - its timmm (nice but dim.)

flash does a lot more than video sweety - you really need to learn a bit more about this technology thing don't you...

maybe i can book some evening classes for you?

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655524)

Have you even tried it, or if you have you don't seem to know how to use it properly.

1) I've used it for iPlayer a few times and it works fine, yes the scrollbar is too small but pinch and zoom into it, how often are you seeking anyway?

2) If you click on the flash player it gets focus and the whole page doesn't scroll. If you don't then yes the whole page will scroll.

-1 Apple fanboy propoganda

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

master811 (874700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655602)

Perhaps, but I'd rather have a choice, and don't want to be an Apple sheep with Steve making it for me.

Besides you said it yourself, nothing has been designed for touch input, that doesn't mean it won't be and considering this is the first release ever, I'll forgive them if it's not completely perfect.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655696)

Conclusion: Steve Jobs was right; flash doesn't belong on phones and I'm glad he is killing it, even if he is still an annoying control freak.

Lots of bog standard HTML web pages feature tiny buttons so should we conclude that web browsing is a waste of time on phones? Or could it be that some web sites need to be redesigned.

It's exactly the same with Flash. Some apps will work while others expect higher resolutions or features that phones don't support.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655768)

Also, the big content providers in the USA seem to be purposefully blocking access from mobile devices. Try going to Hulu or CBS and displaying videos and you will be blocked even though Flash is perfectly capable of displaying those videos. This just astonishes me that they don't want me to view their advertisements from my mobile device. I can only assume Steve has arranged some exclusive deal with them or they're planning on releasing pay-per-view versions of their web sites, perhaps using a dedicated video application. FAIL.

Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe (1)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655792)

Actually, it used to be the same with web pages (and still is for many).

They were designed for large screens and are very hard to use on the small screens of phones.

Slowly though, mobile browsers are getting better at handling the problem, and web pages are being redesigned to make things better.

Now, Flash doesn't have the same luxury of time - nor would I want them to because I don't really like Flash - but I think that they should be accorded some opportunity for adjustment. Just because it doesn't work well on a random site the day of its first release (full Flash for mobile, that is) doesn't mean it should be discarded immediately.

Full Screen Mode? (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655816)

Did you try putting the app into full screen mode? I figure that might help with the scrolling problem. (I don't have it on my phone yet so I'm not sure.)

But what about performance? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655000)

A lot of people are excited about Flash on Android, but what about the performance? My impression from reading various previews is that it's rather slow and laggy. Have they improved on things, or were these people running Flash on devices that aren't supposed to be running it in the first place?

I must admit that I want Flash to go away and be replaced by open web standards, but at the same, time I would like to be able to view all web content on my mobile phone.

So did they manage to get decent performance out of this thing, or is this still more of a tech demo than anything else?

Re:But what about performance? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655036)

Flash is slow and laggy on everything, what did you expect?

Re:But what about performance? (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655134)

And more importantly, how many horrible security holes does Adobe's bad, sloppy programming introduce?

Re:But what about performance? (5, Informative)

ma3382 (1095011) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655210)

I have Flash on my Nexus One running FroYo...honestly, its not that bad. Youtube videos run very smoothly for me (much more so than the actual Youtube app, that thing is garbage IMHO). It's only when you see pages with lots of crap (ads) on them that performance becomes an issue. You can set the plug-in to On Demand, but when you select one flash object to load, I've noticed every flash objects loads and then performance suffers.

Flashblock (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655004)

If I recall, there's an option in the Android browser to only load flash apps "on-demand", i.e. when you click one. Kinda like Flashblock for Firefox.

Also, since this is the final version, does it finally have hardware acceleration? Hopefully we'll see some tests soon.

Re:Flashblock (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655070)

That's a good point. Hardware acceleration is probably going to help a lot, but will it be enough? If anyone can dig up info on whether HW acceleration is mandatory for Flash and Android 2.2, that might shed some light on this..

So thats where all the 64bit (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655064)

developer resources are now?

Re:So thats where all the 64bit (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655124)

I think you're overstating the case. The correct term is developer resource, not resourceS plural.

Relevant (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655106)

How does Apple even hope to stay relevant?

Seriously.

I do not want this (1, Troll)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655116)

Flash is fundamentally user hostile. It's all about controlling the user's experience, not about what the user actually wants.

Until there is an Open Source flash player implementation that can run the vast majority of Flash applications, I don't want it.

Adobe wouldn't be in the platform trouble they were in if that was the case anyway. Right now Adobe has to be the one to create a player for whatever platform. If it were a truly open standard with a good interoperable Open Source implementation, they would no longer have to do that. They could concentrate on making high-quality authoring tools instead.

Re:I do not want this (2, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655150)

If you dont want it, you dont need to use it. I do want it, and your lack of want should not effect my ability to get it.

Re:I do not want this (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655228)

This all boils down to choice.

People in general tend to make VERY BAD choices. However,that's a necessary thing to tolerate about liberty.

If people I look down on aren't able to make choices I disagree with, then I will likely not be able to make the choices that I want.

What I install on my computing device should be my choice and not something dictated by either Jobs or RMS.

Re:I do not want this (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655454)

Exactly. I don't care if Flash sucks the life out of my battery. Maybe I have a spare in my pocket, maybe I'm nearly at home, maybe I'm just goofing around on my phone while I'm sat in bed and will plug it in to charge as soon as I've done something.

And I know people have a "but users won't understand" perspective, but no-one tells people that they can't tow a caravan with their car, despite the fact that it makes it drive slower and use a lot more fuel. There's making computing easy, and there's crippling useful functionality.

Re:I do not want this (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655358)

"Until there is an Open Source flash player implementation that can run the vast majority of Flash applications, I don't want it."

Stop whining. So go out and write one - Flash specification is open (the only closed parts are related to DRM which you don't really need).

Fact of life: animated vector graphics is complex. Even HTML5 doesn't come close to capabilities of Flash.

SHUT UP JUST SHUT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655508)

Holy Crap. Would you just shut up? Good criminy. JUST SHUT UP. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. "fundamentally user hostile"? Are you SERIOUS.

If I have to hear one more whiny, pimply-faced OSS evangelist get all upset about a piece of software given to him for free - one that the rest of us are excited to get, even if its crap - I'm going to slam my tongue in a door until I forget how to even spell computer.

AS IF. AS IF people can't learn how to make flash experiences that work on a 200x200 screen. You're assuming that NO-ONE CAN FIGURE OUT how to make a flash program work with that few pixels, that they'll just keep making scroll bars 1 pixel high? ARE YOU SERIOUS.

In terms of rapid prototyping, Flash works great. Would I write my super-fancy game in it? NO. But I HAVE THE CHOICE. Go back to SourceForge and keep hitting F5. Maybe you'll get lucky and see a NEW OSS PROJECT LAUNCH HOLY CRAP WOULDN'T THAT BE EXCITING. ;)

Re:I do not want this (1)

nickull (943338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655614)

Kenja is correct. You do not have to have it. YOu can choose other technologies. Adobe (which I work for) is all about choice. Anyways, I posted a couple of videos showing some of the experiences of Flash on the Android powered Nexus 1 phone. The experience is actually quite amazing.

http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2010/06/comparison-full-screen-h264-video-on.html [blogspot.com]

http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2010_06_06_archive.html [blogspot.com]

Duane (Disclaimer: I must disclose I do work for Adobe)

Re:I do not want this (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655712)

The Acrobat Connect example is the kind of stuff I'm interested in. I do a lot of Flex & Google Visualization development for platforms like Salesforce. I simply do not see another viable alternative to Flash for this kind of stuff right now since so many business are stuck with older browsers and will not upgrade to something that supports HTML5.

Unfortinatly, Flash has become synonymous with "movie" rather then "application". So this kind of thing is lost on people. I bet many users see a Flash based bar chart etc and dont even register mentally that its Flash.

Re:I do not want this (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655628)

Apple is fundamentally user hostile. It's all about controlling the user's experience, not about what the user actually wants.

FYP

And there was much rejoicing. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655118)

I know that Flash is not popular around here, but the facts are that it is invaluable for in house web apps. Google Visualization, Flex, Salesforce API, etc are very popular in the business world. Being able to have a 6SIGMA style dashboard written once in Flash and useable on both a web site (intranet in most cases) and a mobile devices is invaluable. Sure, in time HTML5 may be a viable alternative, but we're talking about the business world which is still on IE6 in many cases.

Every time I get a project along these lines support for IE6 is a requirement, and so the only real option is Flash or AJAX (or more often then not a combination of the two).

Slashdot is broken with Firefox (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655198)

Since yesterday, I can only see a small fraction of the replies under any topic without logging in. The "More" link does nothing, and the option to set the viewing threshold has vanished completely off the pages. The Firefox error console is suddenly chock full of errors and warnings for every Slashdot page I visit.

Back to Linux dev please? (1)

unts (754160) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655284)

Perhaps now the overworked, underpaid developers who did this can get back to work on flash for 64-bit Linux [slashdot.org] .

And while I'm in a bitter mood... It still amazes me how flash can be so horribly inefficient even at video playback. Ancient VLC versions play back H264 with far less CPU usage than current Linux flash does. I do wonder how Adobe manages to achieve this disparity in performance.

Re:Back to Linux dev please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655400)

because they convert everything to RGB for backwards compatibility.

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21750&page=3

Re:Back to Linux dev please? (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655412)

I second this motion. And Adobe please do this pronto... not wanting to come across all whiny and stringy but common... 64 bit has been around for more than a decade (at least for me... pure 64 bit since 1996 (Sparc and MIPS.) and x86_64 since Opteron)

Re:Back to Linux dev please? (2, Interesting)

nickull (943338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655682)

I am lighting fires under the PM's for this every day (I work for Adobe). There are many of us here that want support for 64 bit linux. You guys have every right to be whiny about this. I bitch about it myself. THere are Duane Nickull dartboards on more than one Flash Player engineers door. Keep up the pressure. - DN

As an Android owner, it is a sad day... (1, Troll)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655326)

Now I can have the dubious claim of the cell phone with the biggest security whole.

Re:As an Android owner, it is a sad day... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655436)

...biggest security whole

Nice.

64 bit? (1)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655380)

So how long before Adobe releases a 64bit Linux version of 10,1?

They were doing pretty good supporting 64bit platforms for a bit but they seem to have stumbled a bit recently.

Flash-disparaging post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32655422)

on Daring Fireball in 3... 2... 1...

(Gruber abandoned any pretense of rational objectivity a loooooong time ago.)

--CF

So Flash is out (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32655480)

Froyo still has not come out of the beta stage :-)
I guess google was waiting for Flash and Froyo now will be rolled out. Lets hope.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>