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 On Android Fails To Impress

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the because-you-have-failed-to-achieve dept.

Android 436

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Neil McAllister test-drives Flash Player 10.2 for Android 3.0 and finds its shortcomings too sweeping to be chalked up to beta status. 'The worst part is the player's inconsistent behavior. This gets really frustrating when there's lots of HTML and Flash content mixed on a Web page. The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random,' McAllister writes. 'As far as I could tell, there was one thing and one thing only that the Flash Player for Android 3.0 accomplished successfully. On the stock Android browser, Flash content is invisible, so you don't notice Flash-based advertising. With the Flash Player installed, however, all those ads suddenly appear where once there were none, their animated graphics leaping and scuttling under your fingertips like cockroaches on a dinner tray — some achievement.'"

cancel ×

436 comments

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

i guess (1)

hoytak (1148181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820818)

.... it's just not flashy enough.

Or is that too Flash-y?

Headline should say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820850)

"Flash On Android Fails To Impress InfoWorld's Neil McAllister"

Re:Headline should say (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820870)

"Flash On Android Fails To Impress InfoWorld's Neil McAllister"

Tell us how it impressed you!

Re:Headline should say (-1, Flamebait)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820938)

If it manages to make useful annoying sites that insist on implementing basic functionality in Flash, then it will impress quite well enough.

If Linux users copped this kind of attitude for Flash, they would be portrayed as RMS worshiping hippies with little grip on reality by the same exact Apple fanboys that get their hate-on for Flash.

Re:Headline should say (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821094)

If it manages to make useful annoying sites that insist on implementing basic functionality in Flash, then it will impress quite well enough..

Instead, it takes useful sites and converts them into slow, annoying ads. Not exactly progress, IMHO.

Re:Headline should say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821168)

Which is why the Android browser has flashblock functionality built-in. This way, I can still load the flash content which is relevant to my interests and not bother with the shitty "punch the monkey" banners. Of course, it would be better if this feature was enabled by default, but at least the option is there.

Captcha: solvable

Re:Headline should say (5, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821206)

If Linux users copped this kind of attitude for Flash, they would be portrayed as RMS worshiping hippies with little grip on reality by the same exact Apple fanboys that get their hate-on for Flash.

It's like Linux users advocating that Microsoft port IE6 to Linux to be able to view websites that need it rather than to demand that webmasters code to standards.
Android users are so desperate for something to differentiate themselves from iOS they are fighting on the wrong side here.

Re:Headline should say (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821332)

When every browser supports flash except the browser on iOS devices, who's desperate to differentiate? Android users just want what's always been available to them in every other environment they use.

Personally, I think Flash is lame. Webmasters and designers use it WAY too much. I appreciate video players, but even that should be phased out as html5 gets more traction. When I'm building sites, I avoid flash like the plague. I'll use flash only if there is NO OTHER WAY to accomplish my goal. I can't control other developers though.

If I want to use the web, I need flash on my browser. It's everywhere, including Apple products....except iOS devices.

Re:Headline should say (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820974)

By actually showing content.

Re:Headline should say (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821072)

Fuck off mac fanboi.

You're well known for your ability to suck steve jobs cock, and then bitch when other people point it out. You're a hypocrite if you do that shit here.

Re:Headline should say (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821160)

Windows user. ;)

Re:Headline should say (2)

BatGnat (1568391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821264)

I was thinking the exact same thing. Where the adds coming from the infoworld website?

Either way like it or hate it, it is still infinitely better than flash on iOS...

Re:Headline should say (2)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821292)

Where the adds coming from...

What I want to know is, where the subtracts coming from? ;)

Re:Headline should say (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821340)

In the same way that shit on a shoe is infinately better than shit on a shoe that has no shit?

Re:i guess (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820874)

'The worst part is the player's inconsistent behavior. This gets really frustrating when there's lots of HTML and Flash content mixed on a Web page. The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random,' McAllister writes. 'As far as I could tell, there was one thing and one thing only that the Flash Player for Android 3.0 accomplished successfully. On the stock Android browser, Flash content is invisible, so you don't notice Flash-based advertising. With the Flash Player installed, however, all those ads suddenly appear where once there were none, their animated graphics leaping and scuttling under your fingertips like cockroaches on a dinner tray â" some achievement.'

Settings > Enable plug-ins > "On demand"

Problem solved.

Great Solution!: guess (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821020)

Settings > Enable plug-ins > "On demand"

Problem solved.

Hey, great! Could you please forward that to the appropriate higgajillion users out there using Flash on Androids?

Get back to us when that's done. Thanks.

IMPRESS UPON THIS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820826)

Gotcha !!

Go Baby Go !!

The Whole Web! (4, Insightful)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820858)

With the Flash Player installed, however, all those ads suddenly appear where once there were none, their animated graphics leaping and scuttling under your fingertips like cockroaches on a dinner tray

Oh so that's what everyone means when they say flash lets you see "the whole web".

Re:The Whole Web! (2, Informative)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820918)

Probably.

Speaking of ads, I was on a site with heavy flash ads, and noticed that Activity Monitor was showing both my CPU cores pegging. I check it out and Chrome's Flash handler was using something like 150% of CPU time.

The whole web indeed.

Re:The Whole Web! (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821232)

I remember back when I used to run Windows on my laptop, if the battery suddenly dropped 50% in ten minutes I'd go to the task manager and find some minimized Firefox window maxing out a core running some Flash crap. Firefox seems to handle that better these days, or maybe Linux Flash does.

It really is an evil monstrosity.

Re:The Whole Web! (2)

BatGnat (1568391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821288)

Simple, You need more cores, or a cluster...

Re:The Whole Web! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821112)

With the Flash Player installed, however, all those ads suddenly appear where once there were none, their animated graphics leaping and scuttling under your fingertips like cockroaches on a dinner tray

Are cockroaches really known for leaping and scuttling under people's fingertips on dinner trays? I don't know about Flash player but I wouldn't accept a dinner invitation from Neil McAllister after reading that.

corporate not consumer (2)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820860)

Air and Flex are really where these are useful. Certainly video sites, but most will just have native apps...so yes for the average consumer flash isn't much a bonus over native apps that will of course perform better.

Remote desktop sharing may or may not use native apps, but there could be some usefulness for some of the "share my desktop" sites out there.

Gaming has some bonus. Most of the facebook games are Flash based. So all those Facebook games that this guy probably doesn't play will work....many of them of course will port to natives...I guess it just gives Android a bigger app number.

Re:corporate not consumer (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821252)

So all those Facebook games that this guy probably doesn't play will work...

Unless they have any kind of mouseover interface. And if the flash content that he did try didn't work properly, why do you expect Facebook games will be any different even if they don't use mouseover? They aren't all that reliable even in Internet Explorer (I don't use it, but my friend that plays facebook games does).

You're Joking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820862)

I've been using Flash on my Nexus one for a while now and yeah it had bugs and issues and crashes a lot but there are certain situations that it was either
A. Use a buggy flash implementation
B. Don't view the content at all

I know that I'd choose the buggy Flash 99% of the time. Also, I have flash setup to only display on demand which means that I don't see the flash content unless I want to.

Re:You're Joking? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821024)

I've been using Flash on my Nexus one for a while now and yeah it had bugs and issues and crashes a lot but there are certain situations that it was either
A. Use a buggy flash implementation
B. Don't view the content at all

I know that I'd choose the buggy Flash 99% of the time. Also, I have flash setup to only display on demand which means that I don't see the flash content unless I want to.

What content did you need that you couldn't get without Flash ?

Re:You're Joking? (2)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821132)

Pron

Re:You're Joking? (2)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821282)

No-one has made a pron site with a HTML5 player yet ? Sounds like an opportunity for some enterprising young entrepreneur.

Oh really? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821324)

There are and endless number of sites on the internet that feed Pron out in h.264 to iPhones and iPads. Saying that need Flash to get Pron from the internet is like saying that you can't get any water unless you have a specific faucet when it's raining outside and a fleet of Deep Rock trucks are stuck just outside your door with flat tires.

Were Apple right? (5, Insightful)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820864)

Ever wonder why Apple didn't want to put Flash support on the iPhone? It would appear to have been a shrewd move.

Re:Were Apple right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821044)

Ever wonder if anyone would had complained so vehemently about flash on mobiles if it wasn't for apple? As a linux user I complained about it for years then all of the sudden everyone jumps in, including many windows users which had no real problem in the first place.

Re:Were Apple right? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821146)

And then you stopped complaining, right? Because it wasn't cool any more.

Re:Were Apple right? (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821314)

I thought flash was interesting and possibly very useful, then everybody started making these flash monstrosities of websites that became gaudy fairgrounds of useless crap. That's when I swore off flash. Shortly after that the 'advertisers' discovered flash. At that point, flash became the marauding barbarians at the gate. The only real choice was to reinforce the wall, ready the boiling oil, and siege engines. Metaphorically speaking.

Currently I hate flash, though I still need it for certain things. If there was someway to split out the useless bloatware and the evil ads (they're all evil by default), it wouldn't be bad.

Re:Were Apple right? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821398)

If there was someway to split out the useless bloatware and the evil ads (they're all evil by default), it wouldn't be bad.

Adblock [adblockplus.org]

Re:Were Apple right? (1)

kybred (795293) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821212)

Yes [amazonaws.com]

Flashblock for Android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820868)

Flashblock is my favourite Firefox plug-in for a good reason.

Re:Flashblock for Android? (1)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820926)

Just set plugins to be disabled, or on request.. Job done...

Re:Flashblock for Android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820948)

True dat, but you need an exception for YouTube.

flash without flashblock is idiotic (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820888)

Flash is occasionally useful - some sites won't even show you any content without it, or like Strongbad have their content primarily in flash. But why on earth would anyone run flash without a flashblock extension in the browser? That's just idiotic!

Seriously, maybe i'm just an old fart, but whatever happened to the user being the one in control of his or her own computer? Why do more people not insist on having control over their machines? Why would you trust any random flash content *by bloody default*?

SOME flash is useful. SOME flash is malicious. SOME flash is merely advertising. The only thing that makes sense is to run that flash which is useful. Arbitrarily running any flash at all - sheesh, would you let anyone in the world borrow your car? Your house? Or would you only permit that of people you trusted? Why should your computer be any different?

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (2)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821008)

Flash is occasionally useful - some sites won't even show you any content without it, or like Strongbad have their content primarily in flash.

Homestar Runner used to be my primary reason to install Flash. This was back in the days Linux users were bitching about Flash because it was so poorly supported, now it seems they are its biggest cheerleaders. Honestly, I haven't been to that site in a couple of years and anyone starting out now would be insane to do it with a Flash based website.

SOME flash is useful. SOME flash is malicious. SOME flash is merely advertising. The only thing that makes sense is to run that flash which is useful.

The "problem" with flash these days is that there is a better solution for the problems it solves, especially on mobile devices. They are pushing a bad solution to a technical problem and that's why Adobe will eventually lose even if they make it "good enough."

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821032)

They are pushing a bad solution to a technical problem and that's why Adobe will eventually lose even if they make it "good enough."

Bad solutions win more often than not, especially if there's a few billion in advertising dollars behind them.

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821164)

They are pushing a bad solution to a technical problem and that's why Adobe will eventually lose even if they make it "good enough."

Bad solutions win more often than not, especially if there's a few billion in advertising dollars behind them.

Sure, but usually not when there is a popular platform that offers a better solution. That better solution is HTML5 on the desktop and mobile for video and native apps on mobile for games. The platform is iOS, it doesn't even need to retain dominance because the fatal blow has already been dealt: who would start a project these days with Flash as their primary technology ? The fact they are making their play for relevance with Adobe Air shows that Adobe know the way the wind is blowing.

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821420)

The "problem" with flash these days is that there is a better solution for the problems it solves, especially on mobile devices.

So what is the 'better solution' for a site like HomestarRunner.com ?

SVG with animation and sound? How well does that work these days?
I just tried:
http://svg-wow.org/text-effects/text-effects.xhtml [svg-wow.org]

And it fails on FF4 quite badly. Maybe it's my underpowered CPU, but lines being written end up overlapping eachother, there's text characters bunching up in the center, and so forth and so on.

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821026)

whatever happened to the user being the one in control of his or her own computer?

It died when Apple bundled an operating system with every one.

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821046)

Well some people like to be in control of their computers and not have it ask for stupid things. Like, I wouldn't want the browser to ask me or wait for me to tell it to display images, or run javascript, or.... whatever. I went to the page damnit! That was authorization enough for me. Why would I install flash, go to a page, and not have it run the flash *by bloody default*?

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821130)

> Why would I install flash, go to a page, and not have it run the flash *by bloody default*?

Because it can be malicious or annoying. Same as for javascript.

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821350)

If it's a page you've not visited before, how do you know which Flash you want to enable? How do you know how much Flash it has? Why not disable all Flash by default and then enable only those portions you actually want (or think you need, since you'd be uncertain where all the content is hiding)? After all, it's a safe bet the content is in the middle and that any Flash at the extreme top, bottom, left or right is just advertisements (and advertisements are universally [or near enough universal for the difference to not matter] superfluous and not what you'd be interested in on the page anyway). In the end, it's trivial to re-enable a piece of blocked Flash, whether you are using Flashblock or running content only on demand.

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (1)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821058)

All of the existing Android implementations of Flash behave like this. On my Viewsonic GTablet, Flash 10.2 defaults to loading On Demand (ie you click play) in both the default browser and alternate browsers like Opera Mobile.

Re:flash without flashblock is idiotic (4, Interesting)

mattcasters (67972) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821162)

The default way that Flash presented itself on my Android 2.2 tablet (Point Of View Tegra 2) was by showing an empty block with an arrow in it where you would normally see the Flash content. If you then tap on it, it is activated.

I disabled that tap-enabled mode for the following reasons:
1) the Tegra2 dual core is plenty fast
2) I only visit fairly straightforward sites with Flash, like news-sites and such.

Personally I couldn't be happier. Flash on Android, even on 2.2 works as advertised as far as I'm concerned. Later I indeed would like to use it with Firefox 4 and add-block & flashblock plugins but for now it works fine for the things I expect from it.

Could it be? (0)

mean pun (717227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820902)

Yeah, I know, it's a question you just don't ask. I'll have to hand in my geek card. But still, I can't help but think of it. Could it be? I mean, is it possible? Could it be that Apple was right, and Flash is just too heavy for a handheld device?

Re:Could it be? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820960)

That's kind of like saying that Flash is too heavy for a yesterdays Mac.

Re:Could it be? (2)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821004)

I own a 2007 MBP. Flash is too heavy for that. If I fancy emptying my battery in 30 minutes, I allow flash. It's permabanned from the machine for the sake of usability, and it's not a particulary underpowered machine either.

Re:Could it be? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821018)

Well, yeah. I have an 8 year old Mac Powerbook that gets killed by modern Flash objects. You can watch the battery % charge meter count down when a heavy Flash page is being displayed.

Re:Could it be? (3, Insightful)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820966)

No. Flash isn't necessarily ideal but I'd rather have the choice. There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app. You have the choice to completely disable it, I think possibly even uninstall it, and easily set it to only on demand... Whereas with Apple, you have none...

Re:Could it be? (3, Insightful)

repetty (260322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821078)

No. Flash isn't necessarily ideal but I'd rather have the choice. There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app. You have the choice to completely disable it, I think possibly even uninstall it, and easily set it to only on demand... Whereas with Apple, you have none...

I'm kinda like you -- I prefer to have choices.

The general public, however, does not think that way at all. They aren't interested in choices and certainly don't want to fucking think about it. Please don't bother them.

Apple is a profanely profitable company because that nail that kinda stuff.

Choices? (1)

mveloso (325617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821326)

You can choose to eat shit or not. For most people that's not a valid choice.

Re:Could it be? (1)

mac84 (971323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821234)

Flash isn't ideal? Sounds like a good reason to convince content creators to use or develop alternative platforms. How do you do that? A big player or players (like Apple and Microsoft) fail to support the platform.

Doesn't have to be an app (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821272)

There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app.

Did you actually try those sites on an iPhone? Because just about any site now simply gives that content directly to the iPhone instead of forcing you to use a Flash wrapper to play it. That way media doesn't have fiddly controls, I can control it easily.

The reality is that if you are browsing media almost everything will work on an iPhone or iPad these days.

Re:Could it be? (3, Interesting)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820978)

Thing is, Flash stuff is made by artists, and artists are commanded by marketeers, and marketeers exist to annoy the shit out of you, and we all know what Flash ads do... Flash let adverts become the new embedded midi. I browse with flashblock on, with a small whitelist for things like YouTube, but generally it stops my browser doing annoying things like lock up, play sounds I really don't want to hear or throw shit across the site whilst I'm browsing. Like frames, flash will eventually be dropped for the sake of everyone's sanity. Unfortunately JavaScript is allowing web designers to do some more annoying shit again, but it takes longer to appear as it's nowhere near as draggy and droppy as Flash is.

Re:Could it be? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821060)

Hand in your geek card. Its not about flash being heavy, it's about every single flash-ready web site being designed to be navigated with a mouse, and being designed to appear as annoying as possible to boost ad clicks. That is the problem plaguing flash on handhelds, you dont have a mouse and you dont have screen real estate to waste on ads. Was apple right in saying that flash adds little to nothing to the overall handheld browsing experience? Yes. Then again, no one is making you use flash on your phone. Were there to be mobile-oriented flash apps out there, they would probably work great (oh, wait, there are.)

My big gripe with flash is that not a single content provider has turned to it to deliver mobile media in an effective way. Hulu? Sorry, locked out. CNN, FOX, and the rest of the news? Big fat bomb. Netflix? Oh, right, flash is "insecure". There's no killer app for flash, probably because it took so darn long to have a working client on mobiles. Everyone with a genuine interest went off and made their own app long before flash 10 mobile came around.

Re:Could it be? (4, Insightful)

DCstewieG (824956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821110)

Also remember that we're coming up on 4 years since the iPhone came out and was ridiculed for not supporting Flash. 4 years of vastly increasing mobile computing power and memory. 4 years for Adobe to get its act together. 4 years to see why HTML5 video and animation is important.

4 years. If this is what we're seeing now, just imagine what Jobs was shown way back when the decision was made.

Wrong question (3, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821122)

Yes, having flash render by default is stupid. It's primarily used by ads - which bring no benefit to the user.

Having it *available* is useful, and there Apple is wrong.

So, not all that different from Flash on a desktop (0)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820922)

The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects

Flash has a way of stealing focus away from the page its on, causing havoc with input, browser commands, mouse scrolling, etc. I'm not sure to what extent its because of how Flash is written, or because of the browser plugin architecture.

Re:So, not all that different from Flash on a desk (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821114)

Flash can be created/written to do all sorts of things. I have had my flash code call javascript functions to change the z-index of the div it lives in and a lot more. There are certainly ways to control every aspect of a flash object's behavior to make it behave properly in the web page's environment.

Accomplished two things not one ... (3, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820924)

As far as I could tell, there was one thing and one thing only that the Flash Player for Android 3.0 accomplished successfully

Actually there seems to be two things. Besides getting advertisements working again it seems to also suggest that Apple may have had a point that Flash performance was disappointing.

Re:Accomplished two things not one ... (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821258)

Especially since Apple said this a year ago, and Adobe has had another year to try to make it right, and (according to the reviewer) has missed the mark by quite a bit.

Set plug-ins to "On demand" (4, Insightful)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820930)

By setting the browser to enable plug-ins on demand, unwanted flash ads appear as clickable boxes, and and flash object in a page can be loaded by clicking it.

Since nobody is likely to rewrite the whole internet to exclude flash (espeically since there are old browsers that practically require flash) it's really nice to be able to have flash when you need it.

I've used flash many times on my phone, and my only complaint is that the phone can be a bit wonky about registering clicks. But this happens with 'clever' html too.

Pro-tip: if your web browser is acting weird (not registering clicks etc..), tip your phone into landscape mode and then back again. You'd be surprised how reliably that fixes weird flash and html problems.

So... (2)

Minwee (522556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820946)

"The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random."

So what he's saying is that Flash is working as designed.

I don't see the problem here.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821140)

It's always worked as designed: like crap. To be honest, I haven't missed flash on mobile at all and I have no intentions of installing it on my phone. I need my phone to last the whole day, after all.

For video, there's absolutely no reason to be using flash in today's world.

Has it ever worked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820954)

Has flash ever worked as it should on _ANY_ platform? (Specially on linux-based puppies.)

Adobe's flash team is a joke, to say the least.

But as long as everything uses flash and we just need to use it anyway, they'll keep neglecting it until absolutely required.

Flash on my phone is okay (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820970)

But then again, I use the equivalent of "adblock" on my android phone so I never see those ads he speaks of.

But it's true about the moments of conflict between flash and browser. Guess what? There is no "hover" in a touch screen environment. That makes flash and even a lot of HTML/CSS/JavaScript pretty unsuitable for mobile/tablet browsing. Should we be shocked or should web developers need to take this into a little more consideration? I think they should -- after all, flash will be eventually replaced with HTML5's functionalities and the problems will remain the same with or without flash.

I'm a little surprised this topic hasn't been raised sooner and more often.

(On a side note, I am actually grateful that advertisers don't trust content providers to report accurate click rates and/or that content providers can't or won't host advertising content themselves. If there were honor among those thieves, it would be a lot harder for me us to block ads. Let's all thank their greed and mistrust to making it possible and even trivial to block their ads.)

Re:Flash on my phone is okay (1)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821010)

Offtopic but which adblock do you use? And how good is it?

Re:Flash on my phone is okay (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821180)

Fennec (Firefox Mobile) now has adblock, but I personally find the mobile experience with Fennec less than ideal, perhaps it works better on a tablet?

Re:Flash on my phone is okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821226)

Maemo 5 for the N900 has a bit of a clever way of dealing with the no hover issue. If you hold off the screen (while in the native browser) on the bottom left a mouse popout comes up. Tap on the mouse popout and a mouse cursor appears. Dragging your finger across the screen moves the cursor without panning. You can pan with the arrow keys or switch modes if you need to. Once you get the hang of it, it is a pretty nifty way of faking mouse functionality. It was a little rough around the edges, but interesting nonetheless.

Re:Flash on my phone is okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821304)

I wonder where this "Tap on the mouse popout" is, I can't see it and I've got the latest updates. When holding and the right-click menu appears, everything else is faded in the background, and the menu disappears when releasing the screen, and otherwise there's no "mouse popout". Maybe I'm just blind. :S

It's all about focus (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820994)

Obviously, the developers didn't give a rat's ass about focus. I have the same problem with Opera web browser - a flash application will "take focus", even though it is not in the active window. I do something like "mouse gesture close current window" and a background window closes. Why? Because the flash app had focus. Why does this happen? Because developers are just racing to implement a raft of features from a bullet point list in a powerpoint presentation somewhere. Who the hell cares if it actually works for users out in the wild? That's not the metric by which developers' work is measured. Nobody ever got a bonus or promotion by attending to nitpicky user-experience details.

Re:It's all about focus (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821086)

Because developers are just racing to implement a raft of features from a bullet point list in a powerpoint presentation somewhere. Who the hell cares if it actually works for users out in the wild?

Dick Jones: "I had a guaranteed military sale with ED 209. Renovation program. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?"

Re:It's all about focus (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821328)

Nobody ever got a bonus or promotion by attending to nitpicky user-experience details.

No, they just get a market cap worth several DELLs more than MSFT.

Flash video works too (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821028)

The issues brought up are mostly true for me as well (Dell Streak, Android 2.2) but the nice part is being able to watch embedded video and navigate websites with Flash front pages. Both seem to work properly (including DLink's annoying selector app). Video websites other than Youtube and Ustream which don't have their own apps are actually visible as well because Flash video is supported.

The sooner Flash is dead, the better (5, Insightful)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821052)

Can't people finally start admitting that maybe Apple was doing the right thing -- for users' long term experience -- in trying to get rid of Flash for mobile devices? It's so bizarre how hatred of Apple and Steve Jobs drives some tech people to irrationally support a lousy and proprietary plugin that we CAN move beyond. Flash was a great thing earlier in the history of the web, but it's time to leave it behind. The only reason the Android crowd loves it is because Apple was the first to admit that it was time to leave it behind. It's become a badge of honor to be able to check that box as a feature -- even if we would be better off (long term for sure) without it.

Re:The sooner Flash is dead, the better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821298)

I'm not a developer, but my understanding is that Flash is easier for the content creators, if not always as convenient on the user side. I'm not sure if that's right, but if it is, everyone seems to be ignoring that end of it.

Re:The sooner Flash is dead, the better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821352)

I don't care what the internet will look like in 5-10 years. Well, I do, but not in this context. Not having flash in *today's* internet is a retarded move that seriously artificially limits the usability of the platform.

Can we stop trying now? (1)

sidragon.net (1238654) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821054)

Flash is dead. As is the parallel port. The floppy disk. The CRT. And many more archaic technological inventions that have come and gone over the years. We have HTML 5. It is standards-based. It is fast. It eases development. Can we finally get over ourselves and accept that Apple have been dismissing Flash because it is simply not useful for low-powered, touch-controlled devices?

Flash on PC fails to impress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821066)

... how long has it been since the last 0-day exploit?

Re:Flash on PC fails to impress (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821174)

... how long has it been since the last 0-day exploit?

0 days. Sometimes if you ask that question at 12:01 AM the answer is "1 day".

Re:Flash on PC fails to impress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821300)

I realize there are multiple moving definitions of what a "0-day exploit" is. My original comment is using the definition: "An exploit with no available patch from the developer", i.e., 0-days from developer response. With this definition, an exploit can be "0-day" for a long time, if the developers hold off on releasing a patch.

In short: Flash sucks (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821090)

Not that this was not already known. Flash basically is a way-out (that works badly) for people that do not get the web and force the old concepts both of paper (where you have absolute positioning) and of movies into the web. That is a bad idea to start with. To make it worse, this particular failed technology suffers from vendor lock-in, bad implementation, bad specification and an atrocious security record. Why anybody competent would want to use Flash is beyond me. Of course, it is possible that nobody competent uses Flash and that the users of Flash are just as incompetent as its designers and implementers. Would not be the first time that something badly broken by design sees widespread adoption.

it's good enough for pr0n (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821108)

which is why anyone would want it on their phone anyway. works very nicely on my HTC Inspire

Well at least I get the choice (5, Interesting)

Reapman (740286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821120)

Do I make use of Flash on my phone a lot? Not really.. Am I glad that for the few times I need it that it's there? Yup.

Since I'm sure the comparisons will be made:
iPhone - Flash uses up 0% of CPU, works on 0% of Flash based sites - for some people this is ideal.
Android: Flash uses up CPU (potentially lots) when I allow it to (it's set to on demand), works on... 20% of Flash based sites? - for some people this is better then the above option.

I guess I'm in the camp that prefers to have the tools, even if they're far from perfect, then to not be allowed the choice. Each to their own really.

Far Worse for you (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821210)

Android: Flash uses up CPU (potentially lots) when I allow it to (it's set to on demand), works on... 20% of Flash based sites? - for some people this is better then the above option.

Meanwhile 40% of the total Flash based sites would be feeding you alternative content if you are in a mobile browser (Safari) that cannot support Flash.

In that way the iPhone user is better off because they are seeing more sites that have content re-done in a way more appropriate for a mobile device, or eliminating overhead (why have a Flash video wrapper at all when your system can play and control h.264 just fine?).

Re:Far Worse for you (2)

Reapman (740286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821414)

Uhhh your aware of the fact that Android's built in browser is treated as a "mobile browser" too right? There's nothing preventing me from viewing a mobile friendly version of a page if it exists - this isn't a special feature of the iPhone. In fact sometimes it's annoying in that as a mobile browser I can't see the full website.

Sounds about right (4, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821188)

This gets really frustrating when there's lots of HTML and Flash content mixed on a Web page. The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random

Ah, so they've faithfully reproduced the Flash experience.

Agenda? (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821222)

Reading the story, that guy appears to have an agenda. I can't take him as a credible source.

Re:Agenda? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821400)

Where are all the people you do take as credible, who are interested enough in something to spend time writing and publishing about it but have no agenda related to it?

In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821236)

It works just like Flash on a desktop computer. Why did InfoWorld think running it on an Android magically fix all of the problems with Flash? Adobe never cared about Flash and never tried to fix it.

I don't understand... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821242)

Why should anyone be surprised by this? Flash usually fails to impress on any platform. In fact, it usually epic fails to impress.

OK Chrome has the fix now (1)

fugas (619989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821268)

Stable Channel release 10.0.648.205 is out. Thanks Google for the incredibly swift response.

Re:OK Chrome has the fix now (1)

fugas (619989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821318)

oops, wrong thread :(

What about the user experience without Flash? (1)

ravenscar (1662985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821286)

What isn't pointed out is that, on some sites, the absense of Flash support means there is NO user experience - just a box indicating a missing plug-in. Some might say that the inability to have the experience at all is worse than the poor experience. I won't argue that Flash is a wonderful platform, but it is a platform through which useful content is delivered. I prefer to have the choice to see that content.

To put it more simply, I had an iphone for 2 years. I frequently wished for Flash support. I know have a phone that supports Flash. I've never once wished it did not.

Flash for videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821334)

As most people are excited when their Android browser runs Flash, I am/was excited as well.

It works great on my epic 4g, except for the fact that I cannot navigate the video timeline... By that I mean that if I attempt to click further into the video, which normally works on the site I am viewing, it will not skip forward to that point. Instead the video is paused. Another tap un-pauses. At no point can I skip through the video like I can on regular firefox browser on laptop.

Nobody likes to wait through the first 5 minutes of porn...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?