9 ms·

"We tested different websites with the Flash 10.1 Player on a Nexus One running Android 2.2 and here’s our first take: With Flash on your phone, no website is r

by tomlin 16y ago

"We tested different websites with the Flash 10.1 Player on a Nexus One running Android 2.2 and here’s our first take: With Flash on your phone, no website is really out of bounds. Flash does not appear to be a battery hog, nor does it chew away at your phone’s resources." Weird. It's like Steve Jobs wasn't telling the entire truth, or something.

Timmy_C 16y ago
The article also pointed out that pages that would otherwise work fine on a PC were borked or had slow performance. This is not the 1-to-1 flash support I think users are expecting.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Two hours of Flash = 40% battery drain. That's still a bit high. Watch a movie on the plane, play a game or two, and you land with a halfway drained battery. Understandable why Flash might be excluded. This level of performance is "acceptable" for most of the industry but not up to the seamless level Apple strives for.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    From Apple on iPhone battery life: "5 hours of Internet use on 3G" That level of performance is acceptable for Apple.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      About twice as long as that in WiFi. How long would Flash 10.1 play over WiFi?
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        Your contention was 2 hours and 40% was outside Apple's standards. I merely demonstrated that it was, in fact, within Apple's standards, as demonstrated by their own stats. More importantly, this demonstrates that Flash doesn't kill battery life as propose by Jobs. 5 hours of heavy web usage of heavy flash sites doesn't sound unreasonable.
        stcredzero 16y ago
        Nope. To do that, you'd have to talk about performance strictly under 3G, or you'd have to talk about use under conditions like onboard a plane. There should be different expectations for mobile use. 3G use is already a drain, and you're asking to add another drain on top of that. The question to ask, is how would Flash over 3G do? If we're down to just a few hours of battery life, it doesn't sound attractive anymore.
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        I disagree. I've already shown that 5 hours of use is acceptable in Apple's world. On top of this, 3G isn't the only available connection. The iPod is completely non-3G, and the iPad has a non-3G variant working just on wireless. Apple's contention was that Flash would destroy mobile batteries. This is clearly not the case. Look at it this way: With Flash, the battery life is 5 hours. With 3G, the battery life is 5 hours. Yes, on 3G, the battery life might be worse, considering you are using both 3G and Flash. But then, where do you draw the line? If 5 hours is acceptable battery life for 3G, if I don't have 3G, could I have Flash and get the same battery life? Finally, that's 5 hours of 3G browsing the internet. Is that 5 hours of streaming video content? I don't know, the website doesn't say. However, the Wired article makes remarks this is party what he was doing, streaming flash videos over a wireless connection. Hopefully that explains it better. Flash clearly doesn't kill battery life. At least no more than 3G does. I think Apple's point of view is partly that 3G offers something you couldn't get otherwise, whereas Flash replicates things already available on the iPhone/iPad platform. Therefore, 3G battery life issues are acceptable, where as, for Apple, Flash is not. And, you can't offer Flash on non-3G variants, because then you know people would want it on the 3G variants.
        glhaynes 16y ago
        You're saying that Flash "clearly doesn't kill battery life" but then go on to say it's no worse than 3G... well, yeah, but lots of people have complained about 3G's effect on battery life, and much of the time both features will be used at the same time so the effect on battery life is "stacked". And keep in mind how much Flash you'll be running "unintentionally" doing just normal browsing (on 3G or not) in the form of ads and the like. Flash doesn't only come into play when you're playing Farmville. So this is something that affects a lot of browsing. On that note: how does backgrounding work in Flash Player 10.1? Can I play Flash-streamed audio in the background while I browse other pages (via "tabs") or use other apps? If not, that's one more plus for native apps over in-browser Flash. But if so, what happens if I have 5 different pages open, each with a couple of Flash ads -- do they keep executing in the background?
  - joubert 16y ago
    are you allowed to have your phone switched on on the plane?
    - azim 16y ago
      With the exception of takeoff and landing, electronic devices are generally permitted in flight. The radio can't be switched on, but many smart phones including the iPhone have an "Airplane Mode" which turns the radios off.
      - joubert 16y ago
        Some airlines do not allow cell phones in flight/airplane mode.
  - spot 16y ago
    frankly i don't care about hours of continuous use. what i care about is that i can look up a restaurant and read their hours and menu. it takes 2 minutes. the iphone can't do it.
Maktab 16y ago
More like Adobe has finally poured some engineering investment into making Flash work decently on a mobile platform. By all indications 10.1 is a massive improvement over 10. It's still not quite as good as Adobe are saying, but it seems to be a lot better. For what it's worth, this is exactly what Adobe should have done from the start instead of wasting their time trying to convince Apple to allow Flash on the iPhone. Getting Flash to run flawlessly on competing smartphones would have made it far harder to Jobs to claim that Flash wasn't technically up to it.
- alex_c 16y ago
  >Getting Flash to run flawlessly on competing smartphones would have made it far harder to Jobs to claim that Flash wasn't technically up to it. But Android is the only smartphone in direct competition with the iPhone, and Android only really picked up steam in the past 8 months or so.
- JanezStupar 16y ago
  And we have Steve Jobs to thank for that. I believe that what would solve many of today's economy problems, is just a bit more balls from companies. Apple rocked the boat and we got better service. More rocking from all sides please!.
- tomlin 16y ago
  None of what has transpired in the last few months smells of ultimatum. It's all very childish.
- tomlin 16y ago
  Great. So Apple will support Flash now that is it up to snuff? Please.
  - Maktab 16y ago
    Probably not now, after the lines have been drawn this sharply. But what sort of argument would Apple have been able to present against Flash if a full mobile Flash port had been up to snuff two or even three years ago?
martythemaniak 16y ago
First he said you didn't need a native SDK, you could make-do with web apps, then they released the SDK. Then he said Apple had to approve apps because otherwise very bad things would happen, but with 50000 apps and millions of users, Android showed that's not the case. Now he says Flash is bad for mobile and Android is once again showing that's not the case. The best part is, you don't have to care what Jobs says as much anymore. I switched from an iPhone to a Nexus One a few months ago and after watching the Froyo keynote, I have a hard time imagining going back.
tvon 16y ago
So Adobe could have fixed Flash at any time, they just didn't feel like it?
- otto 16y ago
  "Adobe says it has made tweaks that will shut down the Flash Player 10.1 when the system runs out of memory." I'm not sure that I would call that fixed.
  - not_an_alien 16y ago
    The player has had major changes in terms of memory use, frame/execution timing, and how it is suspended or not. You're taking one phrase from a non-tech person and judging from that.
    - otto 16y ago
      I took that as a paraphrased quote from a tech journalist. I hope you are right though. I know from my experience with Flash on Linux that it is insane, Flash eventually consumes 4gb of memory and slows my computer to a halt. I finally just removed the plugin and browse without flash.
      - cjbos 16y ago
        You can read the release notes to understand the changes, they detail them pretty well. First 7 pages are changes. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes.pdf http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenote... (PDF Link) Also there is a huge number of bug fixes in this release... don't know why they didn't just call it Flash Player 11, it's not really a dot release.
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    Flash is an application platform. If it runs out of memory, it's an application that is responsible, and Flash naturally has to compensate.
ptomato 16y ago
That's not what Engadget says. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/android-2-2-froyo-beta-hands-on-flash-10-1-wifi-hotspots-an/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/android-2-2-froyo-beta-ha... Money quote: "our beloved handset got piping hot after about 30 minutes of heavy video watching, and the battery indicator in the upper right had a sizable dent."
- joshfinnie 16y ago
  I think those are two very different contexts to the useage of flash on the phone. After 30 minutes of watching video versus opening up a webpage that is based in flash are not very compariable.
  - AGorilla 16y ago
    Who cares about websites made in flash? People want flash for games and video. With that in mind, I think that engadget tested the context that most of us care about.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Actually the real money quote is: "the pre-release beta we have, according to Adobe, lacks hardware acceleration" You really can't judge the power/heat of a version w/o HW acceleration.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by tomlin 16y ago

Timmy_C 16y ago

The article also pointed out that pages that would otherwise work fine on a PC were borked or had slow performance. This is not the 1-to-1 flash support I think users are expecting.

stcredzero 16y ago
Two hours of Flash = 40% battery drain. That's still a bit high. Watch a movie on the plane, play a game or two, and you land with a halfway drained battery. Understandable why Flash might be excluded. This level of performance is "acceptable" for most of the industry but not up to the seamless level Apple strives for.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  From Apple on iPhone battery life: "5 hours of Internet use on 3G" That level of performance is acceptable for Apple.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    About twice as long as that in WiFi. How long would Flash 10.1 play over WiFi?
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      Your contention was 2 hours and 40% was outside Apple's standards. I merely demonstrated that it was, in fact, within Apple's standards, as demonstrated by their own stats. More importantly, this demonstrates that Flash doesn't kill battery life as propose by Jobs. 5 hours of heavy web usage of heavy flash sites doesn't sound unreasonable.
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        Nope. To do that, you'd have to talk about performance strictly under 3G, or you'd have to talk about use under conditions like onboard a plane. There should be different expectations for mobile use. 3G use is already a drain, and you're asking to add another drain on top of that. The question to ask, is how would Flash over 3G do? If we're down to just a few hours of battery life, it doesn't sound attractive anymore.
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        I disagree. I've already shown that 5 hours of use is acceptable in Apple's world. On top of this, 3G isn't the only available connection. The iPod is completely non-3G, and the iPad has a non-3G variant working just on wireless. Apple's contention was that Flash would destroy mobile batteries. This is clearly not the case. Look at it this way: With Flash, the battery life is 5 hours. With 3G, the battery life is 5 hours. Yes, on 3G, the battery life might be worse, considering you are using both 3G and Flash. But then, where do you draw the line? If 5 hours is acceptable battery life for 3G, if I don't have 3G, could I have Flash and get the same battery life? Finally, that's 5 hours of 3G browsing the internet. Is that 5 hours of streaming video content? I don't know, the website doesn't say. However, the Wired article makes remarks this is party what he was doing, streaming flash videos over a wireless connection. Hopefully that explains it better. Flash clearly doesn't kill battery life. At least no more than 3G does. I think Apple's point of view is partly that 3G offers something you couldn't get otherwise, whereas Flash replicates things already available on the iPhone/iPad platform. Therefore, 3G battery life issues are acceptable, where as, for Apple, Flash is not. And, you can't offer Flash on non-3G variants, because then you know people would want it on the 3G variants.
        glhaynes 16y ago
        You're saying that Flash "clearly doesn't kill battery life" but then go on to say it's no worse than 3G... well, yeah, but lots of people have complained about 3G's effect on battery life, and much of the time both features will be used at the same time so the effect on battery life is "stacked". And keep in mind how much Flash you'll be running "unintentionally" doing just normal browsing (on 3G or not) in the form of ads and the like. Flash doesn't only come into play when you're playing Farmville. So this is something that affects a lot of browsing. On that note: how does backgrounding work in Flash Player 10.1? Can I play Flash-streamed audio in the background while I browse other pages (via "tabs") or use other apps? If not, that's one more plus for native apps over in-browser Flash. But if so, what happens if I have 5 different pages open, each with a couple of Flash ads -- do they keep executing in the background?
- joubert 16y ago
  are you allowed to have your phone switched on on the plane?
  - azim 16y ago
    With the exception of takeoff and landing, electronic devices are generally permitted in flight. The radio can't be switched on, but many smart phones including the iPhone have an "Airplane Mode" which turns the radios off.
    - joubert 16y ago
      Some airlines do not allow cell phones in flight/airplane mode.
- spot 16y ago
  frankly i don't care about hours of continuous use. what i care about is that i can look up a restaurant and read their hours and menu. it takes 2 minutes. the iphone can't do it.

Maktab 16y ago

More like Adobe has finally poured some engineering investment into making Flash work decently on a mobile platform. By all indications 10.1 is a massive improvement over 10. It's still not quite as good as Adobe are saying, but it seems to be a lot better. For what it's worth, this is exactly what Adobe should have done from the start instead of wasting their time trying to convince Apple to allow Flash on the iPhone. Getting Flash to run flawlessly on competing smartphones would have made it far harder to Jobs to claim that Flash wasn't technically up to it.

alex_c 16y ago
>Getting Flash to run flawlessly on competing smartphones would have made it far harder to Jobs to claim that Flash wasn't technically up to it. But Android is the only smartphone in direct competition with the iPhone, and Android only really picked up steam in the past 8 months or so.
JanezStupar 16y ago
And we have Steve Jobs to thank for that. I believe that what would solve many of today's economy problems, is just a bit more balls from companies. Apple rocked the boat and we got better service. More rocking from all sides please!.
tomlin 16y ago
None of what has transpired in the last few months smells of ultimatum. It's all very childish.
tomlin 16y ago
Great. So Apple will support Flash now that is it up to snuff? Please.
- Maktab 16y ago
  Probably not now, after the lines have been drawn this sharply. But what sort of argument would Apple have been able to present against Flash if a full mobile Flash port had been up to snuff two or even three years ago?

martythemaniak 16y ago

First he said you didn't need a native SDK, you could make-do with web apps, then they released the SDK. Then he said Apple had to approve apps because otherwise very bad things would happen, but with 50000 apps and millions of users, Android showed that's not the case. Now he says Flash is bad for mobile and Android is once again showing that's not the case. The best part is, you don't have to care what Jobs says as much anymore. I switched from an iPhone to a Nexus One a few months ago and after watching the Froyo keynote, I have a hard time imagining going back.

tvon 16y ago

So Adobe could have fixed Flash at any time, they just didn't feel like it?

otto 16y ago
"Adobe says it has made tweaks that will shut down the Flash Player 10.1 when the system runs out of memory." I'm not sure that I would call that fixed.
- not_an_alien 16y ago
  The player has had major changes in terms of memory use, frame/execution timing, and how it is suspended or not. You're taking one phrase from a non-tech person and judging from that.
  - otto 16y ago
    I took that as a paraphrased quote from a tech journalist. I hope you are right though. I know from my experience with Flash on Linux that it is insane, Flash eventually consumes 4gb of memory and slows my computer to a halt. I finally just removed the plugin and browse without flash.
    - cjbos 16y ago
      You can read the release notes to understand the changes, they detail them pretty well. First 7 pages are changes. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes.pdf http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenote... (PDF Link) Also there is a huge number of bug fixes in this release... don't know why they didn't just call it Flash Player 11, it's not really a dot release.
- DrSprout 16y ago
  Flash is an application platform. If it runs out of memory, it's an application that is responsible, and Flash naturally has to compensate.

ptomato 16y ago

That's not what Engadget says. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/android-2-2-froyo-beta-hands-on-flash-10-1-wifi-hotspots-an/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/android-2-2-froyo-beta-ha... Money quote: "our beloved handset got piping hot after about 30 minutes of heavy video watching, and the battery indicator in the upper right had a sizable dent."

joshfinnie 16y ago
I think those are two very different contexts to the useage of flash on the phone. After 30 minutes of watching video versus opening up a webpage that is based in flash are not very compariable.
- AGorilla 16y ago
  Who cares about websites made in flash? People want flash for games and video. With that in mind, I think that engadget tested the context that most of us care about.
kenjackson 16y ago
Actually the real money quote is: "the pre-release beta we have, according to Adobe, lacks hardware acceleration" You really can't judge the power/heat of a version w/o HW acceleration.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]