×

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 Officially Kills New Flash Installations On Android

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead dept.

Android 313

hypnosec writes "Adobe has announced that it will be making the Flash Player for Android unavailable for new devices and users from August 15 in continuation of its plan to discontinue development of Flash Player for mobile browsers. The company announced its decision through a blog post and further said that only those users who have already installed the flash player on their devices will be receiving any future updates. To ensure that this is the case, Adobe is going to make configuration changes on its Google Play Flash Player page."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

313 comments

Good riddance. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997357)

Flash has always sucked on mobile. I'm glad Adobe is finally admitting it.

Re:Good riddance. (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997429)

Flash has always sucked on mobile. I'm glad Adobe is finally admitting it.

I agree, but many sites still use it, unfortunately. Those sites will become unavailable if Flash is removed on mobile devices.

Which makes me wonder about the wisdom of this decision. As mobile devices become more popular, website designers are forced to make a choice; keep using Flash and be unavailable on mobile devices or redesign with a switch to something else. Adobe loses either way.

Re:Good riddance. (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997511)

It seems particularly curious to kill it when they already have(and are ostensibly releasing security updates for, to the degree Adobe ever manages that) Flash 'working' on Android versions up to 4.0

Do they gain something by killing their marketshare faster than they otherwise would through people gradually upgrading? Naively, I would think that they would try to milk the fuck out of that marketshare while they still can, and do some zealous hunting for alternatives.

Re:Good riddance. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997851)

I always wondered about that, why would they kill off something that is in a lot of web sites, and then I got all conspiracy theory and thought that they were in cahoots with Apple to kill Android, since Android was basically the only one that can support it, and is competition to Apple's clout

Re:Good riddance. (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997903)

well, they called elop up for some tips. ..actually I'm thinking that adobe sells some expensive server-side solution for transferring vids to .h264 on the fly and sites/blogs/video services have to now do that.

losing options sucks anyhow.

Re:Good riddance. (2)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997565)

Since they obviously don't care about the platform anymore, they should consider opening the source code.

Re:Good riddance. (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997695)

I suspect that that would be a no-go. They clearly don't much care about whatever pile of hacks and shims and eldrich blasphemy got Flash running on something that wasn't Win32; but I would strongly suspect that cross-platform stuff like, say, their precious little DRM system, that they hope will save them from HTML5 video by ensuring that 'premium content' providers remain loyal, is worth far more to them closed than open.

What surprises me, really, is that Adobe never got Flash to work properly even as the capabilities of handhelds have shot through the roof. Ok, Flash sucks on a 528MHz ARM11 with 192 MB of RAM and a painfully-underpolished Android 1.6 OS. Why does it still suck on systems with 2-4x as many cores(each clocked 2-3x faster and generally based on a more sophisticated ARM flavor), and a GB of RAM?

Re:Good riddance. (5, Informative)

bluescrn (2120492) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997701)

The thing is, Flash on mobile is very alive. Just not in the web browser.

Look into Flash+AIR, you can build Flash content into mobile apps for iOS and Android, and this support some of the latest+greatest features, such as Stage3D (hardware-accelerated 3D graphics API)

Re:Good riddance. (1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997845)

It still sucks.
I will not install AIR on my device, ever.

Re:Good riddance. (3, Informative)

bluescrn (2120492) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997951)

But you don't 'install AIR'. You install just-another-app, and never know that it's made with Flash (unless you're really looking for it)

Adobe Edge (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997603)

Adobe loses either way.

Not if Adobe produces tools to recompile existing Flash vector animations into JavaScript+SVG or JavaScript+Canvas and recompile ActionScript into JavaScript. Isn't Adobe Edge part of this effort?

Re:Good riddance. (4, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997619)

Adobe cared about selling the Flash creation tools not the Flash platform itself. They'll just change the tools to export HTML5.

Re:Good riddance. (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997841)

So how do Android Phone users watch youtube w/o the Flash? What's the alternative? I would love to get rid of flash on my PC, but too many sites break without it.

Re:Good riddance. (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997869)

There is an android youtube app. On top of this youtube supports HTML5, so you don't need flash for it.

Re:Good riddance. (4, Funny)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997895)

Those sites will become unavailable if Flash is removed on mobile devices.

...and tragically, most of them are pr0n.

Re:Good riddance. (2)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997513)

I created a few games in Flash for playing in a webbrowser, and for the lols I also tried it on an Android, and it worked quite well actually! Sad to see it go.

Flash allows creating a complete game with all graphics, audio, etc... in a single file, that works the same on almost all platforms. This is quite handy. So I really wish Flash to stay strong, and, have a fully perfect open source player (in other words, have the official player itself be open source).

Re:Good riddance. (-1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997885)

By work the same you mean sucks equally on all of them?

For games it was almost usable, for video it was and still is horrid.

Re:Good riddance. (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997933)

> For games it was almost usable, for video it was and still is horrid.

That's a lie! All games on Newgrounds and other such websites work perfect, even in multiplayer etc.... And for video: Youtube also always worked perfectly with Flash.

Re:Good riddance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997989)

I created a few games in Flash for playing in a webbrowser, and for the lols I also tried it on an Android, and it worked quite well actually! Sad to see it go.

And now those tools export to HTML5, and that works fairly well and better every day, without relying on proprietry formats. Where's the problem again and why would you be sad to see it go?

Re:Good riddance. (1)

bluescrn (2120492) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997687)

But unfortunately, the alternative (HTML5), sucks even more - at least for game-related uses :(

Next Up, Good riddance.to Fuckle!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997919)

Well duh, that's because Adobe only had Flash on one shitty platform, Fuckle Assdroid. Had it been on Apple iOS "or fuck, even Winblow 7/8 phone for that matter" it would have been far better. Fuckle Assdroid, like Fuckle Chrap, Garbage-Mail (gmail), and their own lousy search service that is way too fucking annoying. I mean what the fuck? First they introduced their "Did you mean" suggestion feature and now it changes fucking words because *they* know more than the fucking user. Hell, even M$ isn't that fucking annoying. Eventually Fuckle will bomb with their inferior products and services and the communists running Fuckle will all be in the fucking poorhouse.

But HTML5 sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997379)

I don't like flash but it doesn't cause as many headaches as poorly rendered html 5.

Re:But HTML5 sucks (1)

bluescrn (2120492) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997713)

HTML5 is terrible at the moment if you want to make games, or do any fancy animation type stuff with it. Even on a high end desktop PC it fairly chugs along, and has a major problem - you need WebGL to get any useful level of graphics performance, and Microsoft have no plans to support that in IE.

wasn't it already dead? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997391)

I'm certain it was Steve Jobs that killed Adobe Flash player on mobile devices a couple years ago.

Re:wasn't it already dead? (1)

nilloc (678273) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997463)

Steve Jobs had declared it brain dead a few years ago. But Adobe finally pull the plug.

Re:wasn't it already dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997469)

I'm certain it was Steve Jobs that killed Adobe Flash player on mobile devices a couple years ago.

yup... 2007.

VM within VM within VM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997401)

Good.

Now, people will have to find other ways to use 3 MB of libraries and forty thousand machine instructions to change a single pixel on the screen from black to orange.

Re:VM within VM within VM. (5, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997503)

Silverlight?

Re:VM within VM within VM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997703)

Silverlight is dead. Microsoft has effectively abandoned it.
Silverlight is not supported, and will never be supported on any of Microsoft's current or future mobile platforms. (Winphone 7and 8, win8 RT)
Silverlight does not work in Metro IE on windows 8, only the desktop version of IE (Trying to watch netflix in win8 was a real eye opener). Silverlight is not a supported development environment/language/framework/whatever for Metro programs at all. (Which is why it only works in the win8 'desktop' environment, which is essentially windows 7 SE) Silverlight isn't even bundled with win8. You have to download it.

Silverlight was nothing but another product that Microsoft produced to dilute a competitor's market share. It was not created to fill any need, only to harm Adobe Flash. Now that flash is going to be replaced with HTML5, Microsoft does not have any use for it anymore. Any developer that invested in it really should have known better.

Re:VM within VM within VM. (1)

bluescrn (2120492) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997729)

'The Silverlight plug-in has crashed'

The most annoying thing about Netflix in a browser...

Re:VM within VM within VM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997867)

It was terrible, but we got Mac support for Netflix out of it. I'm wondering what they're going to do going forward for Netflix. What DRM scheme is next? Are we back to windows only?

Die flash die! (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997421)

These words have been a mantra of mine for years. I suspect that many other people share this worldview. The death of flash cannot come soon enough for many, many good reasons.

I'll light the bonfire, who's bringing the beer? Is killing flash the best thing Steve Jobs ever did?

Re:Die flash die! (2)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997575)

I don't understand this hate! Most games that work on Linux are written in Flash.

Re:Die flash die! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997837)

Exactly, a lot of the games I play on Linux made in Flash.

Who is going to replace it? Canvas? Silverlight? WTF, you really believe that? It took flash years, to reach this level of popularity. If any of those were true competition we would have seen some interesting projects by now. But we don't, and still won't for years to come.

Re:Die flash die! (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997881)

you want adobe to blow cash on development so you can play free games?

Re:Die flash die! (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997969)

You can develop these games with the open source flex framework. You write actionscript code and get all the resources (images etc...), and compile it all into one swf file that works everywhere.

This is the thing I find weird: Adobe made the developer tools to create an swf open source, but not the player to view them...

Re:Die flash die! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997583)

Me too! Though I like to be accurate... I just wanted it to die as a video wrapper or delivery platform for video/audio. Apparently Flash does other things well, like animation, or as some kind of web application platform... but Adobe never put much effort into trying to get a userbase for the things Flash was good at or really what it was intended for... they just started shoehorning it into a niche that was barely satisfactory in 2002, but by 2004/5 it had become the Third Scourge of the Internets (after Internet Explorer and malware... PDF was in there somewhere, but at some point computers got fast enough and bandwidth got wide enough to allow browsers to blaze, so now we scoff at "PDF warning").

Strange direction (4, Interesting)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997473)

I've never seen a company "give up" like this. I would have thought Adobe would have a vested interest in making their software work on a platform everyone is clamoring to dominate. It's like they just said "meh,.. F- it". They also discontinued Flash on Linux (not sure about mac).

Re:Strange direction (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997497)

Are they committing suicide?

First they give up on Linux Flash, now Android Flash. Can't quite figure it out.

Have they been afflicted by the RDF?

Re:Strange direction (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997705)

Committing suicide by eliminating the waste-of-time writing anything for the clusterfuck known as Linux?

Freetard please!

Re:Strange direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997931)

Committing suicide by eliminating the waste-of-time writing anything for the clusterfuck known as Linux?

Freetard please!

Oh look, an anonymous coward trolling on linux. Get a life.

Re:Strange direction (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997551)

adobe sells development software. their other products are already used in the development of mobile software. the probably didn't see a need for Flash

believe it or not Adobe also has HTML5 development software they sell

Re:Strange direction (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997661)

believe it or not Adobe also has HTML5 development software they sell

Does it have a similar feature set compared to Flash? Are things like animation and syncing audio supported? Can you create vector graphics and have it exported as a canvas or SVG? I think it's going to be a bitch to transition to HTML5 for creating e-learning content. The ideal situation would be that Flash would be able to export to HTML5 without losing any functionality, I can't see that happening though.

Re:Strange direction (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997941)

Does it have a similar feature set compared to Flash? Are things like animation and syncing audio supported? Can you create vector graphics and have it exported as a canvas or SVG? I think it's going to be a bitch to transition to HTML5 for creating e-learning content. The ideal situation would be that Flash would be able to export to HTML5 without losing any functionality, I can't see that happening though.

No, But some years ago when this roadmap was made it was supposed to happen "real soon now"(tm)(html5 getting to that stage on all browsers including mobiles).

Re:Strange direction (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997607)

Flash player was just a means to an end. Adobe makes money selling creative tools, they probably realized they have no strategic interest in trying to control the browser platform. Better to leave that stuff to Apple/Google/MS.

Re:Strange direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997633)

They also discontinued Flash on Linux (not sure about mac).

Huh. That's news to me. Could you provide a citation to this effect, or should I just accept that I'm apparently living outside the bounds of time and space with my working Adobe Flash plugin (that is, not one of the barely-working, only-for-ancient-SWFs open implementations) on my Linux boxen, both on Ubuntu and Gentoo?

Re:Strange direction (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997737)

Here's [slashdot.org] the /. story from earlier this year. They're discontinuing the standalone Linux plugin, but made a deal with Google to support a new Pepper-API version of it in Chrome. Apparently Chrome-only, because nobody else so far is implementing that API.

Re:Strange direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997761)

Citation. [adobe.com] Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version released for Linux, aside from the player built in to Google Chrome.

Obviously, Adobe discontinuing Linux development did not cause existing copies of Flash Player 11.2 to retroactively cease to exist, but you'll note that 11.3 has already been released for Windows and Mac OS.

Re:Strange direction (4, Insightful)

Artraze (600366) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997735)

The flash runtime is really only a cost for them: they have to maintain it ('cause it's so secure!), optimize it, and port it to a lot of platforms.

What they make money on is the flash toolkit. Adobe has decided that maintaining the runtime isn't worth is and instead moving their toolkit over to HTML 5 (and continuing along with being able to export video, etc). Really, it's mostly a win for them. They kept going along with the runtime because it did afford them certain benefits, the install base (which they monopolize) in particular... I think I hear it was something like 90% which probably beats HTML 5 by a wide margin. However, they see the writing on the wall: HTML 5 is getting more common and flash player less. They have a mature toolkit and it's time they compete on that alone and stop wasting (excess) resources working on a costly* side project that really only made sense half a decade ago.

(*I mean seriously, in terms of bad PR alone...)

Hmm... (1, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997483)

But doesn't this mean Android devices are going to be only able to view half the web now? I thought Flash was the amazing killer feature of Android...

Re:Hmm... (2, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997601)

The killer feature for Android is that it releases better, faster, and more feature rich phones several times a year.

Re:Hmm... (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997639)

Actually most Android phones are schlock with low res screens and running ancient Android versions.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997813)

Yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are several better, faster, more feature rich Android phones released each year. Just buy one of the good ones.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997917)

But it does give android a negative and sometimes unfair reputation of sucking. Bad hardware, old software.

Old android devices are great for Moms. They don't care about most of the features anyway. Young people and geeks want phones that can run the latest apps. Google needs to either force specs on vendors or make android run faster and run on old hardware longer much like microsoft has to do with windows. Google is following the Microsoft model (pre surface anyway) and they need to ship legacy crap to make it work. It's a sad truth.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997645)

Homestar Runner hasn't had a new video in about two years now, so Flash is obsolete.

I told you so dance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997489)

This is the part where I point and laugh at you for being right all these years.
Specifically, the dogmatic apple haters that piled their support behind flash.. Only because 'ol Jobs called Adobe out on the pile of crap that is flash.

I'm bored with being civil about it.
Suck it. Suck it hard. :D

Re:I told you so dance. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997967)

But Jobs died first. So NO U!

I wonder how many fools.. (1, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997493)

Will be actually cheering this. I wonder how long its gonna take to sink in that "Hey we just got rid of one proprietary format....for a patent troll's wet dream, yay us!"

Of course since the late great iSteve was all for H.264 then it HAS to be good...right? He wouldn't have any ulterior motives, like say splitting mobile with MSFT [theregister.co.uk] and thus would actually WANT something patented up the wazoo to discourage competition? Naaaahhh..

Sheesh wake the fuck up folks! At least Adobe didn't give a rat's ass where and how you distributed Flash, hell they didn't even bitch about Gnash at all and you trade someone THAT easygoing for a "Pay your $699 license fee you cocksmoking teabaggers!" troll group? Just try distributing H.264 support without cutting a check, just try and see how quick you get a C&D. Look I'll be the first to admit that on anything but windows Flash was badly written, I mean it was by Adobe for God's sake. But you DO NOT replace a pile of shit with a punch in the nuts alright? That is NOT progress!

Re:I wonder how many fools.. (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997535)

You do realize that Flash videos are just H.264 in MP4, right? It's been this way for years. Almost no one uses Sorenson for Flash video anymore.

Vector animation (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997625)

You do realize that Flash videos are just H.264 in MP4, right?

Prior to the use of H.264, it was H.263. Prior to H.263, and continuing for some time after H.263, it was vectors. For example, Weebl's Stuff, Homestar Runner, and most of the animations on Newgrounds and Albino Blacksheep are vectors. What tool for authoring Canvas or SVG vector animations for an HTML5 environment do you recommend?

Re:Vector animation (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997685)

Yes, which is why I said 'no one uses Sorenson for Flash video anymore' since I do know what it used previously. He was complaining saying getting rid of Flash means replacing it with H.264 but Flash videos ARE h.264 and have been overwhelmingly since around 2008.

Re:Vector animation (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997793)

You are correct that no new Flash videos use Sorenson. But not everybody who has created an old Sorenson based video and hasn't yet bothered to convert it is contactable. And more importantly to the central point that I was trying to make, you didn't address vector-based animations at all.

Re:I wonder how many fools.. (2)

catmistake (814204) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997655)

You do realize that Flash videos are just H.264 in MP4, right? It's been this way for years. Almost no one uses Sorenson for Flash video anymore.

Right. So exactly why do we need Flash for web video? We don't. It's superfluous. Now it's gone from mobile, we just need to clear it off the rest of the internets.

Re:I wonder how many fools.. (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997717)

You seem to be arguing against a point I never tried to make. But for content providers the video streaming framework is still more mature than for HTML5 video. That is why people still use it. My point was only about addressing the complaint of getting rid of Flash meant it was being replaced by H.264, but this is silly since Flash video IS H.264 in almost every case nowadays.

Vectors (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997823)

Flash video IS H.264 in almost every case

How big would "Badger Badger Badger", a 36-second vector animation loop, become if converted from vectors to H.264? Or "We Drink Ritalin", a music video for a John Desire song? Or "French Erotic Film", a music video for an Ome Henk song?

Re:I wonder how many fools.. (3, Interesting)

catmistake (814204) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997939)

You seem to be arguing against a point I never tried to make. But for content providers the video streaming framework is still more mature than for HTML5 video. That is why people still use it. My point was only about addressing the complaint of getting rid of Flash meant it was being replaced by H.264, but this is silly since Flash video IS H.264 in almost every case nowadays.

Didn't mean to sound argumentative... was more exuberant. Flash, however, was never needed for what it was used for 99% of the time. Another thread mentioned Black and Tans... so I thought of a terrible metaphor. Flash is like Harp... a decent pale lager, but it becomes exceptional when mixed properly, wrapped, as it were, around Guinness ... which unfortunately for this metaphor can only be vector animation or a web game. So... Adobe says "Hey! What's good for Guiness is good for EVERYTHING! Mix it with your gin! It's a better vermouth! Mix it with your whiskey, it's a better sour!" Trouble is, Harp doesn't mix that well with anything but Guinness, no matter what the bartender says. And eventually, people will start hating Harp... because its just awful when it's used improperly, and unless it's by itself or with Guinness, it's being used improperly. Flash was never intended to be a video wrapper... that was just something that it could do but only did well during the very earliest part of the last decade under special circumstances, before bandwidth was taken for granted. Adobe kept leveraging it for video, however, long after it was reasonable to do so. Eventually, everyone hates Flash and forgets that its actually a decent app platform and wonderful for vector animation. Had Adobe stepped back off pushing it as a video wrapper, for which it is terrible for the extra processing overhead, and left it to find it's true usefulness, perhaps most web users wouldn't despise it.

Re:I wonder how many fools.. (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997949)

So WHY do we need two implementations, with one of them (flash) loaded with unfixable and inscrutable (closed code) security issues?

Video is ten times bigger than vectors (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997765)

So exactly why do we need Flash for web video? We don't. It's superfluous.

We don't need it for web video, where "video" refers to compressed sequences of pixel-based images. But we still need it for web vector animation. I tried converting a .swf vector animation to video by rasterizing each frame of the animation and compressing the frames as a video, and the file size bloated by a factor of ten.

Re:I wonder how many fools.. (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997815)

You do realize that Flash is far more than videos, right? Hell Flash videos are often far more than videos - they're often actual animations.

Re:I wonder how many fools.. (2)

mjwx (966435) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997805)

Will realise they've just cheered away a product that works for one that doesn't.

Flash was shite, it was a slow, buggy, CPU chewing pile of scrotum. I'll be the first to admit that but flash did everything it said on the tin and a bit more. HTML5 at current cant even do what it says on its own tin, let alone half of what was on Flash's tin.

We've traded away a slow, reliable and butt ugly mechanic for a person who cant even tell the difference between a valve and a vagina and people are happy about this.

For crying out loud, we cant even decide on a video codec yet. Google and Apple are pushing their own codec's (for all intents and purposes, Apple just about owns H.264) and I read a few days ago Microsoft is also considering it's own. So we have umpteen versions of HTML5 and risk the net falling back into the dark ages of the Netscape/IE wars again.

Re:I wonder how many fools.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997863)

Karma whoring HOWTO (updated):
- Just rant like a crazy old geezer

Flash, Flash... I love you... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997623)

...but we only have fourteen hours to download this bloatware!

And on that day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997659)

NOT A SINGLE FUCK WAS GIVEN!
Really. I'm so sick and tired of flash and what it's used for anymore.
It's one of those things i never WANTED to use. But was forced into using to do other things. And now 98% of the flash i encounter is an invasive ad.

it's bloated buggy crap. it's always been bloated buggy crap. it will always be bloated buggy crap because its an adobe product and that's all they produce.

Just go the fuck away already.

Send out the kill command. Delete all flashplayers from the world!

grab a copy now? (is it possible) (4, Interesting)

neurocutie (677249) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997679)

So is it possible to somehow grab a copy of Android Flash now that would be installable in the future?

Re:grab a copy now? (is it possible) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997853)

I wouldn't bother. Once a piece of software, especially something proprietary, goes unsupported, it has six months of usability max.

Flash still unlikely to go away. (3)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997743)

I do not see the need for a flash player going away any time soon due to the immense amount of content in Flash. Flash is so widespread it is hard to get rid of. It seems Adobe is attacking Google here, perhaps because Google is switching to HTML5.

I agree it would be best for Flash to disappear, Adobe is a corrupt, evil company that uses various unsavory practices. But how to get contnent developers to stop using it? As long as people keep making stuff in flash unfortunately it will remain popular. Part of the issue is making a good replacement for flash. HTML5 helps a.lot with this but as well what really makes flash popular is that developers love Adobe Flash development tools. The sad thing is flash's development tools are very popular with developers and I do not see them giving up flash until something better comes along. I have yet to see anything come along that actually can exceed the features and ease of use of Adobes tools.

Many here presume Flash will go away. This is sort of like saying Linux will become popular, people here do not understand why people use software, they use software because it works well. Adobe has great tools that work well and just expecting people to stop using them when there are no alternatives or the alternatives are inferior is absurd.

Re:Flash still unlikely to go away. (1)

rollingcalf (605357) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997997)

The emergence of tools to convert Flash to other formats would allow developers to continue using Flash for development while still enabling web sites to avoid delivering Flash.

so how am I gonna read restaurant websites? (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997753)

Hell is going to freeze over before most of the restaurants I visit build usable websites. Now they won't be viewable from mobile at all!

Then patronize the restaurants' competitors (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997877)

Then patronize the restaurants' competitors. I just tried chick-fil-a.com, for example, and it works just fine in Firefox with Flashblock on. Do you want me to try the site on my Nexus 7 tablet when I get home to make sure it's 100% pure HTML5?

Re:so how am I gonna read restaurant websites? (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997959)

There's some new thing coming around called HTML5.

For those of us who develop on Flash... (2)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997757)

Flash wasn't just about videos and ads on the internet. Some of us developed useful applications like forms for front line people, reports for pointed hair people and video games (look up sharpform - a lot of video game UI's run on Flash). Its sad that the platforms it supports is shrinking and not growing.

Ages ago when I worked for Adobe - an internal conference was show casing everything they just acquired from Macromedia. The mantra was "the future of the company is everything we just acquired" (that wasn't the official mantra, but after attending plenty of developer sessions that was what I was feeling) - I'm sure that is still true to a certain extent, but there was a genuine feeling that Flash could actually take on Java as a web runtime - especially because we were going to have the worlds first full runtime on a mobile device (at the time they were talking about Symbian and WebOS).

Don't laugh - one of the internet's biggest websites youtube.com runs on top of Flash media server :) (or at least it used to!). Also this was long before HTML-5 and Javascript was showing any promise. If you wanted to have a rich web app your choices were Java or Flash.

BBC iPlayer (1)

codman1 (904493) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997859)

Anyone know how it will be affected as it used Flash to play its video's?

Dedicated iPlayer app (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#40997891)

I'm guessing that people in iPlayer's territory will just download the iPlayer application from Google Play instead of the Flash Player.

Firefox on mobile is building in h.264 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997983)

as soon as this bug lands [mozilla.org] it'll be available on nightly builds [mozilla.org], preffed off by default. The name of the about:config preference to toggle to true is:

media.plugins.enabled

Good, but that is only a small start (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40997993)

They need to kill flash everywhere next. Also kill acrobat

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...