3 ms·

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 brow

by 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.

by gcp 15y ago

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.