6 ms·

I'm amazed that anybody is still expecting Flash. Has the iPhone not conclusively demonstrated that Flash is a legacy feature of dwindling relevance?

by GHFigs 17y ago

there 17y ago
no, it hasn't. for video, maybe, but there are still a lot of websites that are useless on mobile safari without flash just for stupid things like animated menus.
- axod 17y ago
  There will always be crazys using silverlight/flash/java applets for ridiculous things. Best avoid them.
  - boucher 17y ago
    As a developer, that is sound advice. As a user, it's silly. I don't get to decide which websites use flash and which don't, and technical limitations don't dictate which sites I want to visit.
    - axod 17y ago
      It works for me. That's why I've never been interested in adblocking software. If a site annoys me, I just don't go there any more. That's why I've hardly ever read any of the nytimes articles that get submitted here. Because they put them behind an irritating signup wall. There's accounts you can find on google but I really can't be bothered. It's not like there's a shortage of websites doing the same thing.
      - allenp 17y ago
        I agree - plenty of sites, why visit one that annoys you - but I will say that with advertising it is becoming less and less the case that the site actually chooses or even knows what ads are showing on their site.
        axod 17y ago
        Webmasters have a ton of choice there. Even with adsense you can filter out specific ads, change settings to prevent image/flash ads, etc. If the webmaster cares, they can modify it. And they really should know what ads are showing on their own site.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  just for stupid things like animated menus Like I said: dwindling relevance. Nobody in their right mind uses Flash for anything important. The one small exception is games, but the iPhone platform has no shortage of games that are faster, better looking, and better tailored to the platform than anything you can do in Flash.
  - thechangelog 17y ago
    cough cough YouTube? (also, the majority of online display advertising, Facebook and countless other uploaders, etc...)
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      HTML5 video element means FLV is short lived. Or at least, _could be_. I expect IE's lack of support will prop it up for quite a while. Also, you make it sound like YouTube isn't on the iPhone.
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      iPhone/iPod touch already have a YouTube client which works fine. And I'm not really going to complain too much if my browser suddenly can't show me annoying animated full-screen ads with sound...
    - m_eiman 17y ago
      Youtube: has a native app Online ads: I don't think the majority of users find that to be a problem Uploaders: What are you going to upload that can't be done just as well with a normal file picker? I'd guess the thing is a big iPhone, not a small computer.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      The iPhone has supported YouTube through a native application since it launched. It does this by streaming the MPEG-4 video directly instead of using Flash as a player. Every other video site does this as well, and they don't even need a native app or any server-side weirdness. The only reason we don't do this on the desktop is inertia. the majority of online display advertising Which no consumer gives a flying fuck about and many actively oppose. It isn't "important". Nobody would desire Flash just so they could get Flash advertising. Facebook and countless other uploaders The iPhone has no user-visible filesystem for these to interface with. Even if it did, it isn't as though Flash is the only way to upload files: it just happens to be a way that skirts around browser limitations. A native application (even on the desktop, like Flickr Uploadr or iPhoto's Facebook integration) does the same thing. I'm not trying to say that Flash is dead. Obviously it is in use all over the place. I'm just saying it's not a vital thing to have in anything new, and can cite the iPhone's success in the past few years as an example.
thechangelog 17y ago
Maybe on mobile, but certainly not the desktop. While I would certainly prefer to build everything in HTML/JS/CSS, if I want a media player or gallery that works predictably and consistently Flash is certainly the best way to go. Ditto online advertising. Since Adobe rolled out AS3 I would say the Flash platform is as vibrant as ever.
josefresco 17y ago
In what world is Flash 'dwindling in relevance'? Maybe the hyper progressive iphone-toting geek world but down here on planet earth, where we still browse the web with things called computers, Flash has massive leverage and I don't see it going anywhere for years.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  And where do you see it going in some years? Do you see it becoming more important? Or is it a demonstrable fact that devices without Flash support have been highly successful in the market? Apple sold 7 million iPhones last quarter, and a few million more iPod Touches. One of the primary features of these, for which they are often praised, is web browsing. None of them, not even jailbroken ones, support Flash. Many other devices in the market offer web browsing with Flash. They do not generally sell well, at least by comparison. One conclusion you can draw from this is that there are 7 million more poor deluded fools out there who stupidly think it's possible to slink by on the web without the vital component of Flash. There will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments as these dreamers agonize over their diminished experience of the web, until that proud day in some distant future when they are finally blessed by their provider of their crippled devices with the privilege of Punching the Monkey any time they like. There will be load screens and gradients and tweening galore. Another possible conclusion, which is the one I have drawn, is that these people are by and large satisfied with their purchases and consider the lack of Flash support a mild disappointment, if they consider it at all, on the occasion that they are blocked from some task (watching a video, playing a game, viewing an ad) because the author has chosen to limit its accessibility to Flash-supporting clients. And that this is a sign, perhaps, that Flash is really not so very vital to the experience of the web as is often supposed, being not so much a technical necessity as an inertial holdover from an earlier time--from back when you could honestly say that 99% of Web users had Flash. And further, that the popularity of devices that omit Flash support is not going to wane on that basis; more likely the opposite: that Flash itself is likely to slide into irrelevance as more people browse the web without it. Hence: Flash is a legacy feature of dwindling relevance. As it happens, I don't own an iPhone. I have only even used one for maybe 30 minutes, total. You may want to paint me as "hyper progressive" or swayed by owning the device, but my argument is based on what I see going on around me, right now, here on planet Earth.

I'm amazed that anybody is still expecting Flash. Has the iPhone not conclusively demonstrated that Flash is a legacy feature of dwindling relevance?

by GHFigs 17y ago

I'm amazed that anybody is still expecting Flash. Has the iPhone not conclusively demonstrated that Flash is a legacy feature of dwindling relevance?

there 17y ago

no, it hasn't. for video, maybe, but there are still a lot of websites that are useless on mobile safari without flash just for stupid things like animated menus.

axod 17y ago
There will always be crazys using silverlight/flash/java applets for ridiculous things. Best avoid them.
- boucher 17y ago
  As a developer, that is sound advice. As a user, it's silly. I don't get to decide which websites use flash and which don't, and technical limitations don't dictate which sites I want to visit.
  - axod 17y ago
    It works for me. That's why I've never been interested in adblocking software. If a site annoys me, I just don't go there any more. That's why I've hardly ever read any of the nytimes articles that get submitted here. Because they put them behind an irritating signup wall. There's accounts you can find on google but I really can't be bothered. It's not like there's a shortage of websites doing the same thing.
    - allenp 17y ago
      I agree - plenty of sites, why visit one that annoys you - but I will say that with advertising it is becoming less and less the case that the site actually chooses or even knows what ads are showing on their site.
      - axod 17y ago
        Webmasters have a ton of choice there. Even with adsense you can filter out specific ads, change settings to prevent image/flash ads, etc. If the webmaster cares, they can modify it. And they really should know what ads are showing on their own site.
GHFigs 17y ago
just for stupid things like animated menus Like I said: dwindling relevance. Nobody in their right mind uses Flash for anything important. The one small exception is games, but the iPhone platform has no shortage of games that are faster, better looking, and better tailored to the platform than anything you can do in Flash.
- thechangelog 17y ago
  cough cough YouTube? (also, the majority of online display advertising, Facebook and countless other uploaders, etc...)
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    HTML5 video element means FLV is short lived. Or at least, _could be_. I expect IE's lack of support will prop it up for quite a while. Also, you make it sound like YouTube isn't on the iPhone.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    iPhone/iPod touch already have a YouTube client which works fine. And I'm not really going to complain too much if my browser suddenly can't show me annoying animated full-screen ads with sound...
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    Youtube: has a native app Online ads: I don't think the majority of users find that to be a problem Uploaders: What are you going to upload that can't be done just as well with a normal file picker? I'd guess the thing is a big iPhone, not a small computer.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The iPhone has supported YouTube through a native application since it launched. It does this by streaming the MPEG-4 video directly instead of using Flash as a player. Every other video site does this as well, and they don't even need a native app or any server-side weirdness. The only reason we don't do this on the desktop is inertia. the majority of online display advertising Which no consumer gives a flying fuck about and many actively oppose. It isn't "important". Nobody would desire Flash just so they could get Flash advertising. Facebook and countless other uploaders The iPhone has no user-visible filesystem for these to interface with. Even if it did, it isn't as though Flash is the only way to upload files: it just happens to be a way that skirts around browser limitations. A native application (even on the desktop, like Flickr Uploadr or iPhoto's Facebook integration) does the same thing. I'm not trying to say that Flash is dead. Obviously it is in use all over the place. I'm just saying it's not a vital thing to have in anything new, and can cite the iPhone's success in the past few years as an example.

thechangelog 17y ago

Maybe on mobile, but certainly not the desktop. While I would certainly prefer to build everything in HTML/JS/CSS, if I want a media player or gallery that works predictably and consistently Flash is certainly the best way to go. Ditto online advertising. Since Adobe rolled out AS3 I would say the Flash platform is as vibrant as ever.

josefresco 17y ago

In what world is Flash 'dwindling in relevance'? Maybe the hyper progressive iphone-toting geek world but down here on planet earth, where we still browse the web with things called computers, Flash has massive leverage and I don't see it going anywhere for years.

GHFigs 17y ago
And where do you see it going in some years? Do you see it becoming more important? Or is it a demonstrable fact that devices without Flash support have been highly successful in the market? Apple sold 7 million iPhones last quarter, and a few million more iPod Touches. One of the primary features of these, for which they are often praised, is web browsing. None of them, not even jailbroken ones, support Flash. Many other devices in the market offer web browsing with Flash. They do not generally sell well, at least by comparison. One conclusion you can draw from this is that there are 7 million more poor deluded fools out there who stupidly think it's possible to slink by on the web without the vital component of Flash. There will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments as these dreamers agonize over their diminished experience of the web, until that proud day in some distant future when they are finally blessed by their provider of their crippled devices with the privilege of Punching the Monkey any time they like. There will be load screens and gradients and tweening galore. Another possible conclusion, which is the one I have drawn, is that these people are by and large satisfied with their purchases and consider the lack of Flash support a mild disappointment, if they consider it at all, on the occasion that they are blocked from some task (watching a video, playing a game, viewing an ad) because the author has chosen to limit its accessibility to Flash-supporting clients. And that this is a sign, perhaps, that Flash is really not so very vital to the experience of the web as is often supposed, being not so much a technical necessity as an inertial holdover from an earlier time--from back when you could honestly say that 99% of Web users had Flash. And further, that the popularity of devices that omit Flash support is not going to wane on that basis; more likely the opposite: that Flash itself is likely to slide into irrelevance as more people browse the web without it. Hence: Flash is a legacy feature of dwindling relevance. As it happens, I don't own an iPhone. I have only even used one for maybe 30 minutes, total. You may want to paint me as "hyper progressive" or swayed by owning the device, but my argument is based on what I see going on around me, right now, here on planet Earth.