Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Mobile Flash is killed by Adobe
HTMLHelp Forums > General Interest > Off Topic
jimlongo
Sorry for crossposting this, but I think it is very important to note.

QUOTE
We will no longer continue to develop Flash Player in the browser to work with new mobile device configurations (chipset, browser, OS version, etc.) following the upcoming release of Flash Player 11.1 for Android and BlackBerry PlayBook.


Read Adobe Blog post

Adobe has announced it will no longer develop Flash for mobile devices.

I think the writing is on the wall . . . would they expect that every website designed with Flash will have to have a mobile version without Flash?

I give Flash on the desktop another year before it's dead and buried as well.

Also apparently Silverlight is not going to be developed any longer, as even MS embraces open standards.

HTML5 and Javascript is the future of the web. No more plug-ins.
Christian J
So in which format will annoying ads be shown in the future? mellow.gif
jimlongo
HTML 5 can be plenty annoying. Given more time I could make this even more cross platform.

Best viewed in IE9 or Safari
http://jimlongo.com/junglejim/BuyMe
pandy
Peniz enhancement! My innocent eyes are now bleeding. ohmy.gif

And we seriously need a :shock: smilie.
Christian J
QUOTE(jimlongo @ Nov 10 2011, 09:07 PM) *

HTML 5 can be plenty annoying.

cool.gif

Haven't studied HTML5 much yet, can such animations be disabled as easily as Flash without turning off JS completely?
jimlongo
I don't think so, it's mainly CSS and JS.
Christian J
Apparently Apple is partially to blame: http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/11/adobe-p...lash-player-fo/

QUOTE(pandy @ Nov 10 2011, 09:16 PM) *

My innocent eyes are now bleeding. ohmy.gif

See also http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/20...phone_obse.html happy.gif


pandy
What? huh.gif
Christian J
What what? unsure.gif
pandy
You quoted me and I don't understand why. Nothing made my eyes bleed on that page.
Christian J
Of course not, I didn't believe you the first time.

That aside, is PPK right about the "mobile web developer community" being iPhone-biased, and consequently that those developers ignore Flash simply because iPhone doesn't support it? If they had used Flash on more mobile web sites it might have put more pressure on Apply to eventually add Flash support. Then again it seems many other mobile browsers don't support Flash either...
jimlongo
Chicken or egg?

I think that the argument is that Flash performs poorly on mobile devices, and is a huge drain on battery life.

Those 2 reasons kept Apple from using it in their mobile browser. Reminder. The fact that iOS (iphone,ipad,ipodTouch) don't support Flash put a lot of market pressure on developers to not use it. Developers don't use it, Adobe sees the writing on the wall, they stop developing it.

As of the PPK article, he's missing one salient point. IE6 was totally not standards compliant, you cannot say that about Webkit. Also he still talks as if Nokia matters, article was probably written in 2007.
pandy
It was the most standard compliant there was in those they.
Christian J
QUOTE(jimlongo @ Nov 14 2011, 05:37 PM) *

I think that the argument is that Flash performs poorly on mobile devices

In what way? My limited personal experience of using it on a touch screen was pretty bad, but I don't know if that's due to the format or the particular site I tried.

QUOTE
Those 2 reasons kept Apple from using it in their mobile browser.

I suspect there's also a lot of politics going on behind the various format camps, that don't necessarily have anything to do with settling on the best technology from the end user's perspective. BTW is this the current state of HTML5 video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Controversies ? Maybe both Adobe and Apple will lose in the end. tongue.gif

QUOTE
IE6 was totally not standards compliant, you cannot say that about Webkit.

Some Webkit browsers do seem to have annoying bugs or shortcomings: http://www.quirksmode.org/webkit.html

Regardless, I think PPK's point is that you should also cater for browsers that are not std compliant. For example, in the early days of IE6, Netscape4 was still in use --a browser that would crash from almost any CSS rule, forcing you to hide most of your CSS from it.




pandy
Mine didn't crash. It just didn't do what I wanted. I remember I even contemplated reading up on JSSS. Thank heavens I didn't waste time on that.
Christian J
QUOTE(pandy @ Nov 14 2011, 10:08 PM) *

Mine didn't crash. It just didn't do what I wanted.

I've forgotten all details, here are just a few examples: http://old.macedition.com/cb/nn4crashers/index.html wub.gif

QUOTE
I remember I even contemplated reading up on JSSS. Thank heavens I didn't waste time on that.

Imagine the poor souls that had to create it. OTOH I recall I found out (far too late to be of practical use) that some JSSS(?) things could be used as workarounds for e.g. iframes (that NS4 didn't support).

pandy
I think a lot of it was probably potentially useful, but it would have been a waste of time to learn it for the short time Netscape continued to be around.

Ah, yes. The older minor versions. I probably was satisfied to check in the last one.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.