5 ms·

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 men

by 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.

by 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.