5 ms·

According to the article, Adobe isn't giving up on Flash altogether. They're simply admitting that Flash does not and will not work on mobile devices. The peop

According to the article, Adobe isn't giving up on Flash altogether. They're simply admitting that Flash does not and will not work on mobile devices. The people who currently play Flash games on the desktop will continue to be able to do so. However, if a game developer wants to offer a good mobile experience, they'll have to make it using web standards. And if they're going to do that, why build it again in Flash for the desktop?

gcp 15y ago
That's the sane reaction people like you and me might have, but it does, quite unfortunately, not match reality at all. Google is heavily advertising Android over iDevices as having Flash support. Users know this and expect Flash to work. It works, sortof, on the default browser. It didn't work for the longest time on Opera and Firefox Mobile. Opera now supports it somewhat reasonably (presumable due to a truly herculean effort of their developers to figure out the real API without any meaningful Adobe support), and Firefox Mobile barely in some of the latest Nightlies. Especially due the latter adding support (for a non-open standard!), I think it's a clear illustration that the feature is considered a must have if you want to have significant user penetration on Android. Consider also how much effort Google is putting into helping Adobe make Flash more secure. Think about why they bother. The problem is that Flash websites are out there. The investment has been thrown into the black hole. People who payed for these sites are going to sit on them for a while. And there's quite some sites that only work on Flash. It only takes one of those that you want to visit, such as a restaurant or whatever, without non-Flash fallback, to see how annoying it is not to have Flash. You can't visit the site, period. So you must support it until all those sites are rooted out. And Adobe now even officially doesn't give a shit.
- sjwright 15y ago
  Google heavily advertises flash support because it's a point of difference. And while it's true that there are flash-only websites out there, most of them are barely or completely unusable on mobile -- because they require a hovering-and-clicking input device or enough processing power to saturate a desktop CPU or is laid out to suit a large display. The number of websites that require flash AND would work fine on a phone is vanishingly small.
  - gcp 15y ago
    I believe your claim is completely and utterly wrong, but I don't think there's a point in discussing much without hard data. As I pointed out above, the 3 browser players on Android seem to think Flash support is quite important. Surprising if it is something nobody wants. Laid out to suit a large display? Jeez, an Android phone in portrait has as much vertical resolution, or more, as a cheap laptop. Even in landscape its not a 2:1 resolution advantage, and the phone can still scale the content, too.
    - sjwright 15y ago
      Okay then, Google and the 3 browser players on Android advertise flash support because it's a point of difference. As to whether anyone wants it, well, what they really want is to be able to browse all their favourite websites. Fair enough, but forcing the web to stop treating a proprietary add-on as mandatory is a legitimate (if imperfect) way of solving that problem. Flash sites designed for a large monitor are a pain to use on a mobile device, and it's not because of resolution, it's because they're often combined with smallest-possible typeface sizes and a layout that frustrates if you have to zoom in. Believe me, I've used enough restaurant flash-sites that are all but impossible to navigate on my Android.
    - Samuel_Michon 15y ago
      "the 3 browser players on Android seem to think Flash support is quite important. Surprising if it is something nobody wants." I'm sure there are folks who want it. It just doesn't work. And Adobe has acknowledged that by axing the project, after promising to get it right for 6 years straight. Let's disregard that mobile Flash is limited, buggy, CPU intensive, and battery draining. Most Flash content just doesn't work on small screens that are meant to be manipulated with fingers. The 'hover' action alone is causing web standards programmers head aches -- preparing Flash interfaces for mobile requires > ten times as much work, which the vast majority of Flash creators will never do.
jay_kyburz 15y ago
They don't have to make it for web standards, they just need to recompile for mobile. They are dropping the flash player not the whole flash platform on mobile.

gcp 15y ago

That's the sane reaction people like you and me might have, but it does, quite unfortunately, not match reality at all. Google is heavily advertising Android over iDevices as having Flash support. Users know this and expect Flash to work. It works, sortof, on the default browser. It didn't work for the longest time on Opera and Firefox Mobile. Opera now supports it somewhat reasonably (presumable due to a truly herculean effort of their developers to figure out the real API without any meaningful Adobe support), and Firefox Mobile barely in some of the latest Nightlies. Especially due the latter adding support (for a non-open standard!), I think it's a clear illustration that the feature is considered a must have if you want to have significant user penetration on Android. Consider also how much effort Google is putting into helping Adobe make Flash more secure. Think about why they bother. The problem is that Flash websites are out there. The investment has been thrown into the black hole. People who payed for these sites are going to sit on them for a while. And there's quite some sites that only work on Flash. It only takes one of those that you want to visit, such as a restaurant or whatever, without non-Flash fallback, to see how annoying it is not to have Flash. You can't visit the site, period. So you must support it until all those sites are rooted out. And Adobe now even officially doesn't give a shit.

sjwright 15y ago
Google heavily advertises flash support because it's a point of difference. And while it's true that there are flash-only websites out there, most of them are barely or completely unusable on mobile -- because they require a hovering-and-clicking input device or enough processing power to saturate a desktop CPU or is laid out to suit a large display. The number of websites that require flash AND would work fine on a phone is vanishingly small.
- gcp 15y ago
  I believe your claim is completely and utterly wrong, but I don't think there's a point in discussing much without hard data. As I pointed out above, the 3 browser players on Android seem to think Flash support is quite important. Surprising if it is something nobody wants. Laid out to suit a large display? Jeez, an Android phone in portrait has as much vertical resolution, or more, as a cheap laptop. Even in landscape its not a 2:1 resolution advantage, and the phone can still scale the content, too.
  - sjwright 15y ago
    Okay then, Google and the 3 browser players on Android advertise flash support because it's a point of difference. As to whether anyone wants it, well, what they really want is to be able to browse all their favourite websites. Fair enough, but forcing the web to stop treating a proprietary add-on as mandatory is a legitimate (if imperfect) way of solving that problem. Flash sites designed for a large monitor are a pain to use on a mobile device, and it's not because of resolution, it's because they're often combined with smallest-possible typeface sizes and a layout that frustrates if you have to zoom in. Believe me, I've used enough restaurant flash-sites that are all but impossible to navigate on my Android.
  - Samuel_Michon 15y ago
    "the 3 browser players on Android seem to think Flash support is quite important. Surprising if it is something nobody wants." I'm sure there are folks who want it. It just doesn't work. And Adobe has acknowledged that by axing the project, after promising to get it right for 6 years straight. Let's disregard that mobile Flash is limited, buggy, CPU intensive, and battery draining. Most Flash content just doesn't work on small screens that are meant to be manipulated with fingers. The 'hover' action alone is causing web standards programmers head aches -- preparing Flash interfaces for mobile requires > ten times as much work, which the vast majority of Flash creators will never do.

jay_kyburz 15y ago

They don't have to make it for web standards, they just need to recompile for mobile. They are dropping the flash player not the whole flash platform on mobile.