Apple's Change of Heart On Flash 409
Dotnaught writes "In a blog post, Walter Luh, co-founder of Ansca Mobile and a former employee of both Apple and Adobe, recounts how Apple once promoted Flash on the iPhone then changed its mind because Flash didn't provide the optimal mobile user experience. 'I think that Apple came to the same conclusion I've come to — namely that Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences,' he writes. Luh's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the Corona SDK, a Lua-based programming environment that strives to recapture the simplicity of early versions of Flash."
Adobe Flash will die (Score:3, Interesting)
Adobe Flash will die rather sooner than later and it won't be missed. Now if only all browser vendors could agree on a video codec for HTML5.
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, it'll be dead and replaced by HTML5, SVG, h.264, VRML and a host of other hot new technologies!
Oh and on the same day, Windows will lose it's marketshare position, Linus will relicense Linux under commercial terms, Richard Stallman will buy an iPad and Steve Jobs will switch to Ubuntu.
Imagine the possibilities!
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything, HTML5 is actually the cause that might allow pushing Linux and Firefox even further away.
Basically the situation is currently this;
Microsoft: H.264 for IE (and they are already licensing it in Windows 7). Will not support Theora.
Apple: H.264 for all OS X, iPhone and iPad. Will not support Theora.
Google: H.264 for Chrome (but not for the open source version!). May roll out their own video codec, to mix things even a little bit more.
Mozilla: Theora for Firefox. There is no way they can use H.264 because of countless amount of open source forks. Could only possible support it in main binary Firefox, other users left without.
Opera: Theora. Could support H.264, but wants Theora more.
Develop a plugin that plays H.264 video inside browser to circumvent that Firefox situation? Flash already does exactly that.
Either HTML5 Video will seriously fail and Flash will continue dominating, or the big players will use it to push Firefox and other open source browsers and Linux off the market.
Re: (Score:2)
If a plugin for Firefox appears, why will it be pushed off the market?
And if Mozilla stands by their position (which I support), there will be an extension for it very soon.
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:4, Informative)
There are also various Linux media players with firefox plugins that will happily play h264.
The idea that Linux would be locked out of h264 is beyond absurd.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All the scripting support is included in Firefox. It only doesn't bundle an H.264 codec, and that will obviously be implemented by an extension.
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no reason the plugin experience can't be "seamless". This is just mindless fear mongering.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If firefox can be pointed to youtube and videos don't play
That already happens. Mozilla doesn't use the IE Flash plugin, you have to install it yourself.
and there is no obvious solution to make them play
There's no reason, other than political, that Firefox can't show a missing plug-in icon, just like with Flash, that redirects to an h.264 plugin.
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah. This isn't the first time some non-free stuff hasn't mixed well with Linux. Oil and water man.
Let's see, there's libdvdcss, most wireless drivers until very recently, had to be fetched using some sketchy cutter tool. Flash gets fetched from gawd knows where by the flashplugin-nonfree package,
People who use firefox or linux will tolerate a little configuration pain, even if the codec has to come from a warez server in Russia.
I personally wish we didn't all walk into yet another propitiatory format though, because it's just history repeating itself.
Flash solved "can everyone watch my video?" (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem solved by Flash video wasnt can I show a video? Instead, Flash solved can everyone watch my video? HTML5 video doesnt provide this solution; it just adds another approach to the incompatibility pile.
HTML5 isn't going to change things unless browser vendors agree on a common codec.
Also, unless HTML5's video spec finds a way to implement DRM on video stream playback (which Flash does), studios and major media content providers who want to protect their content aren't going to bite on "HTML5 video".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, HTML5 is a paper tiger. They'll just add a codec= field to the video tag a call it day. Some browsers will support some codecs and others will support other codecs. End users will be baffled from the start and everyone will stick with Flash.
It did, they have (Score:3, Interesting)
Flash solved can everyone watch my video?
That is totally true. And much like Apple solved the "have to have DRM around online music sales" by being the only place to sell music (forcing studios to drop DRM in order to control price), Flash has thankfully gotten us to the point where everyone can watch video, encoded in h.264 (that's what the online flash video is almost all encoded in these days).
Flash made a great scaffolding, but it is time to drop that scaffolding and use a solution that is more perform
Re:Flash solved "can everyone watch my video?" (Score:4, Interesting)
TK: I think that the fact that Google only enabled h.264 HTML5 video on youtube has more to do with the fact that all their videos were already encoded in that format (at 3 different resolutions), for iPhone and Android support. Therefore, it was relatively easy to just turn on the switch for beta HTML5 embedding.
Transcoding all those videos to Ogg Theora (with multiple copies for SD, HQ and HD) would require a major computing effort and storage space availability, that, sadly, just isnt worth it at this point. Remember, it took MONTHS in 2007 for youtube to transcode all of their h.263 FLV videos to h.264 mp4's for iPhone support. And that was before Youtube added 720p and 1080p HD video support. They'd literally have to double their datacenters' storage space!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft: H.264 for IE (and they are already licensing it in Windows 7). Will not support Theora.
I haven't seen any official announcements on this yet. That said, the most likely approach IE will take is to just use DirectShow, which means that it'll use whatever codecs are installed on the system - H.264 is in Win7, yes, but you can always install Theora codecs.
Google: H.264 for Chrome (but not for the open source version!).
Isn't it both H.264 and Theora out of the box with Chrome?
Opera: Theora. Could support H.264, but wants Theora more.
The upcoming Opera 10.50 (which is the first stable release to come with HTML5 video support) will use GStreamer for codecs on all platforms. Which means that H.264 support can be added by the user if needed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are also efforts being made to use GStreamer for Firefox. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422540 [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but Mozilla accepted it for Fennec only. They don't want it in desktop builds, because it'd let you use the "evil" H.264.
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:4, Insightful)
That stand is, of course, H.264 has patent encumbrances which require royalties [0xdeadbeef.com]. How deep are your pockets?
Re:Adobe Flash will die not (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who makes a site completely out of Flash should be _shot_. Repeatedly. In the face and crotch. If I'm using flashblock, I should still be able to see more than a site's copyright notification. Using flash to design a site beyond video is nothing more than ostentatiousness. First you use a little flash for an animated menu. Then you do a little more for a slideshow on the front page. Soon you're serving *all* your content that way, your site takes 30-45 seconds or MORE to load on a broadband connection, and there's a 10 second delay to navigate to a new area on the site. I expect that shit on dial-up, not a 3mbps or more connection. If you can't make a good site without Flash, fucking hire a professional or STAY OFF THE NET.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.
What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?
Maybe HTML5 in Firefox should mean that I can right click and "save as". Then it won't really matter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe HTML5 in Firefox should mean that I can right click and "save as". Then it won't really matter.
You don't need to do even that. Clicking on a video could just send the file to external video player (which always has all the warez codecs you need). Actually, that's the way I want to view my video anyway, I don't want them inside the browser, crashing and hanging all over the place.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So basically you are implying that free and open source itself isn't a sustainable model? That to get full use of it, people should lower to piracy? That's not how FOSS model works.
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really expect to win a rigged game by playing by the rules?
Re: (Score:2)
So basically you are implying that free and open source itself isn't a sustainable model?
If the dominant data formats are patented, grandparent implies exactly this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.
What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?
ActionScript vs. JavaScript (Score:4, Informative)
What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?
ActionScript is ECMAScript with the Flash DOM. JavaScript is ECMAScript with the HTML DOM. One major point of HTML 5 is to make the HTML DOM as rich as that of Flash, in hopes that the next version of a web application will be written in JavaScript instead of ActionScript. YouTube is one of them; if you're running Safari, Chrome, or IE + Chrome Frame, you can switch it from Flash to HTML 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ActionScript vs. JavaScript (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want an example, just look at ActiveX and IE6. I expect Flash to take the same route. A long, lingering, painful death.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ActionScript is ECMAScript
Actually, I think they parted company when ECMAScript 4 was shelved: For one thing, Actionscript 2 and 3 include the extra "syntactic sugar" for a pseudo-class-based syntax, so anybody who learnt AS 2 or 3 first is going to have a nice culture shock switching to propotype-based ECMAScript.
(I feel a great disturbance in the slashdot, as if a billion advocates of prototype-based OOP cried out in anguish and... probably won't ever be silenced :-)
Point is though, as you say, they use a totally different DO
Re:Adobe Flash will die (Score:5, Funny)
What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?
With any luck!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What patents and licenses? From the W3C's patent policy [w3.org]:
The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.
Of course, anything hypothetically could be patented; but HTML5 is at least in the position that there are no known patent restrictions on implementing it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, HTML5 is, but it's up to browsers on what codec they will support.
Its the video codec, not the delivery system... (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.
For general "rich internet application" stuff, moving from proprietary Flash to standards-based HTML5 (+DOM/SVG/ECMAScript) should be good news for open source. The problem is not HTML 5 per se but that the only video codec that seems to be gaining widespread support in HTML 5 is the patent-encumbered H.264.
Newer versions of Flash look like shifting H.264 as the codec for video anyway (albeit with different packaging), so Flash vs. HTML5 is a non-issue on the video front.
Flash + H.264 (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of people are confused about FLV. FLV is not a codec, it's a container. [wikipedia.org] The video inside is usually encoded in Sorensen Spark, On2 VP6 or H.264.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?
755 corporations have licensed H.264. AVC/H.264 Licensees [mpegla.com] It's a damned impressive list. Scrolling through it is like watching a freight train build up speed and momentum.
While Firefox is beginning to look more and more like the heroine tied to the railroad tracks around the next bend.
91% of Mozilla's funding comes from Google. Could open source abandon the Google train? [cnet.com] Now would be a really, really good time to put so
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would consider it a feature, especially since 99% of flash content I see is actually advertising (and it's literally plastered over sites. Countless flash adverts loading their own stupid videos etc. Good riddance)
Re: (Score:2)
You got it wrong. IF all browser vendors could agree on a video codec for HTML5, then Adobe Flash will die. Otherwise, we'll be in the same mess we're in 10 years from now, because it's easier to rely on Flash than going back to guessing what codec the user's OS/browser combination supports.
Early Flash (Score:2)
"the Corona SDK, a Lua-based programming environment that strives to recapture the simplicity of early versions of Flash"
Like... wait for it... VideoWorks?
All Right, Yeah!
Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind (Score:2, Interesting)
Flash can't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers. Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements. How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something?
Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How large do the buttons have to be in order for drag and drop to work?
What depends on hover? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you've seen those absolutely horrid web sites that have nothing but a bunch of useless-looking unlabeled buttons, where an obnoxiously animated label appears only on mouseover?
Answer: the title= attribute (Score:2)
If Apple Really Cared... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.
Re: (Score:2)
So such things as security, quality control, and the like don't mean squat on a consumer device, in your opinion? Note that the iPhone is not a computer - it just pretends to be one on occasion.
Re: (Score:2)
And have the customers complain that its too slow? They wont blame flash, they will blame the device/Apple.
Its a no-win situation for apple.
Control freaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't they let us decide?!
Because that's how Apple works (Score:4, Insightful)
They have long been a "We know what's best for you," company. They decide what experiences they want to offer the user, and the user has very little choice in the matter. They tell you what you want, you just have to go along with it. If you don't like it, you go elsewhere.
That is one of the primary reasons I don't use Apple products. They don't offer what I want, and don't offer the ability to become what I want. So, I take my cash elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're on a Mac, try this: http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/ [github.com]
As a bonus, you can open H.264 streams from Youtube in Quicktime. Free Software, too!
Insanely Great Experiences? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. On my Ubuntu 9.10 dual core desktop, the flash version is running about twice as fast as the html5 version, in Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, flash is an additional layer for the processor to deal with beyond the browser engine itself, lending to extra exchanges of information between browser and flash plugin.
Um ... no. Just because Flash is invoked from the browser and rendering within the browser's page doesn't mean that Flash is one layer abstracted from the processor. In fact, browsers (at least Firefox and Chrome) run Flash as a separate process (at least on Linux, which is all I have available at the moment). What this means is that Flash runs as a peer process to the browser ... not an embedded runtime. Information exchanges are limited basically to user input (minimal) and graphical output (also pretty m
One big fat reason that gets missed... (Score:4, Interesting)
...security.
Seriously - with all the active exploits out there that use Flash as a way into an operating system, I can very easily see a Flash bug being exploited to bust right through the iPhone's 'walled garden' setup (what with it's default root password and all...)
Re: (Score:2)
The optimal mobile experience for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered "non optimal". After all, Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be "confused" by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause.
apple likes it lock down and free flash games as b (Score:3, Insightful)
apple likes it lock down and lock in app store and free flash games are bad for that.
Except flash works on other platforms, if barely (Score:2)
I somewhat understand Apple's position, but if Skyfire can do flash on shitty windows mobile devices then it can be done on the iphone. I still can't believe after the mp3 patent fiasco that we don't have widely accepted open music and video codecs. I already don't run bloated Apple software on my computer I can't wait to file Adobe in the same cabinet I put Realplayer and Quicktime in.
Lua (Score:2)
So, Lua, hmm. Maybe all those hours I spent writing addons for World of Warcraft weren't entirely wasted. Just mostly.
Advertising under a different name (Score:2)
I like what little insight this article provides into the issue of flash on the iPhone, but it's really not substantive enough to warrant posting here on Slashdot. What does stand out, is how much of an advertising pitch this is for Corona. I'm sure it's fantastic, but the first part of the piece seemed, to me, to simply be an advertising lead-in.
It's not just Flash, but all virtual machines (Score:4, Insightful)
The true reason why Apple won't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they won't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store: it doesn't want software running on these platforms that they haven't specifically approved. Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.
This is all bull****.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's only one reason why there's no Flash or Java on the iPhone - because you wouldn't be forced through the app store if they had either of them (unless they crippled them extensively like they were thinking about with Flash until people started pointing out - "uh, if the flash experience is the problem, why will you let the flash experience run on the iPhone only we still have to go through the app store?" - LOL ) and you wouldn't need Apple's development machines and environment to write software for it. If they could somehow get away with not implementing HTML5 (which they can't) you could rest assured it wouldn't be on the iPhone/iPad/iWhatever either.
I can't believe the number of people who lap up this Apple drivel - flash experience is poor? LOL, I wonder how it managed to get such huge market penetration and basically pervade every aspect and corner of the web - oh, I guess because it's crap, right Apple?
For anyone that missed it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Live streaming using H.264 seemed to work just dandy watching the State of the Union address on my iPhone while using the Whitehouse.gov iPhone app. Also seems to work great with MLB At-Bat on the iPhone as well. I watched many baseball games last season streaming live H.264 video to the iPhone.
Re:Try streaming live video... (Score:4, Insightful)
Live streaming using H.264 seemed to work just dandy watching the State of the Union address on my iPhone while using the Whitehouse.gov iPhone app. Also seems to work great with MLB At-Bat on the iPhone as well. I watched many baseball games last season streaming live H.264 video to the iPhone.
But can you do it with a generic app which will connect to any server?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is where you fail.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIT as long as what they want works for them.
People don't care about the technical way things do or don't work, they care that they can click/touch a button and watch a damn video. They could give a shit about open, they want 'works' first.
But to answer your question, yes, the way it works on the iPhone with video is an xml file on a web server describing what the URL is to the various available streams and describing the properties of those streams so the device
Re:Try streaming live video... (Score:4, Insightful)
... to a mobile device, without using Flash. Go on, try it. I'm waiting.
In that case I imagining the existence of solutions for the iPhone that do just that. France24, YouTube and StreamToMe being three examples. I can concede there is room for improvement, but there are solutions, if the installed customer base is of interest to you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This seems pretty true. In theory x264 can encode content with very low latency[1], and delivering MPEG-4 from previously encoded files is pretty easy, but my search-fu can't find any ready made solution for streaming using RTSP that doesn't involve paying through the nose for the software---although hacking something together with x264 seems very doable.
I don't know about how easy it is with Theora, but it doesn't really matter since it has had no impact on the mobile device market whatsoever.
[1]: http [multimedia.cx]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hulu sells advertising in their feeds, Apple does not.
It's all about money indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, Flash is a programming language. Apple doesnt allow programming languages onto iPods, iPhones, or iPads.
Flash could replace a large majority of whats on the App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Enjoy it while you can:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/ADverse_Atkinson_on_Advertising/23941-Chase_Carey_Hulu_to_Charge_in_2010.php?nid=2228&source=title&rid=6454445 [broadcastingcable.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting how Hulu (and others) provide free flash videos while the iTunes store provides videos for sale.
Hulu has already stated they're going to start charging in 2010.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Silverlight does not stream any video to my Linux machine. Of course it should, but somehow it doesn't. Weird isn't it, even though there is this moonlight thingy, the most important internet application somehow does not work right. So Silverlight is basically just working on Windows (and I presume, Windows mobile). Da Silva, I know you are reading, care to comment on that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Da Silva, I know you are reading
Are you talking about Miguel de Icaza or someone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Eh,yeah, sorry I got confused there. My apologies to Da Silva, I mean de Icaza of course. Ugh! Good of you to spot it.
I haven't seen too many (== any) applications outside of video streaming of Silverlight anyway. But maybe I'm not looking hard enough, I'm not one for playing flash games and such.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there something that I'm missing?
Knowledge of how large companies stagnate. It's all bureaucratic BS.
I'm sure there's a team at Adobe that wants to optimize flash - but they're probably being blocked by the higher ups that refuse to cut backwards compatibility.
Flash performance is horrible on any computer. Youtube used to be smooth on my old 2.2ghz Athlon XP, but now it barely plays. Even my 3.5ghz Athlon II has occasional stutters.
Re:Apple hasn't been cooperating 2 imprv Flash on (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this straight ...
Apple needs to help Adobe, a large powerful software company, fix its flash player for OS X ... even though countless other 3rd party apps run fine in OS X and are more than happy to play video with practically no CPU usage at all?
I don't think you actually understand the difference between political posturing and bullshit, and the realities of writing software.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh all of them? With the exception of the 1GB HDD, I do this every day. I'm not sure what your point is?
Even if other applications were just as bad as Adobe, that doesn't make it okay. Using 5 times as many resources as you need isn't "progress"; it's exactly the opposite of progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flash gfx rendering abt 2 be faster on Mac than PC (Score:5, Informative)
Now regarding performance, given identical hardware, Flash Player on Windows has historically been faster than the Mac, and it is for the most part the same code running in Flash for each operating system. We have and continue to invest significant effort to make Mac OS optimizations to close this gap, and Apple has been helpful in working with us on this. Vector graphics rendering in Flash Player 10 now runs almost exactly the same in terms of CPU usage across Mac and Windows, which is due to this work. In Flash Player 10.1 we are moving to CoreAnimation, which will further reduce CPU usage and we believe will get us to the point where Mac will be faster than Windows for graphics rendering.
Video rendering is an area we are focusing more attention on -- for example, today a 480p video on a 1.8 Ghz Mac Mini in Safari uses about 34% of CPU on Mac versus 16% on Windows (running in BootCamp on same hardware). With Flash Player 10.1, we are optimizing video rendering further on the Mac and expect to reduce CPU usage by half, bringing Mac and Windows closer to parity for video.
Re:Flash gfx rendering abt 2 be faster on Mac than (Score:3, Interesting)
That's all fine and dandy but all of the Safari crashs I've had in the past 2 years have been flash plug in related.
Secondly, watching a YouTube video at 480p on my 2.5GHz Core2 Duo takes ~35% of the CPU time available. Watching the same video using the HTML5 version, ~3% of the CPU time available. Even if they did drop it down to 16%, that is still a lot to make vertical mobile Hardware/Software vendors cringe at the power consumption.
Flash is cool because it has a large enough install base at this point
You dont get the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Having old hardware should NOT be an issue when you are hitting a web page.
And its not just flash that is the issue. The entire mindset you just displayed is the core of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (Score:5, Interesting)
Flash Player video performance vs. VLC (Score:3, Informative)
Mike Melanson, the lead engineer of the Linux Flash Player team explains the technical challenges in his latest blog post, Solving Different Problems [adobe.com]:
The Flash Player has to do a little bit more. In addition to decoding the data, it has to convert YUV data to the RGB colorspace and combine the image with other Flash elements. Then it has to cooperate with another application (web browser) to present the video to the user.
So the dedicated media player solves a problem: Generally, it plays linear media files from start to finish while allowing user interaction in the form of random seeking along the timeline. That's the most basic, trained monkey-type of labor in video playback. At most, the player might handle DVD menus.
Flash Player solves a different problem: It plays linear media files from start to finish while combining the video with a wide array of graphical and interactive elements (buttons, bitmaps, vector graphics, filters), as well as providing network, webcam, and microphone facilities, all programmable via a full-featured scripting language, and all easily accessible via a web browser using a plugin that most of the browsing population already has installed.
You seem to forget that video is not the only thing people use Flash for.
Lazy Adobe (Score:2)
I agree totally. It should NOT require that sort of horsepower to display a freaking web page.. That is what 'web' was all about.. moving the horsepower to the servers.
As far as Adobe being lazy.. its rather appropriate since most sites that use flash are done by lazy developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
there is no ARM version of Flash. Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system.
False [androidguys.com]:
Guess which architecture the Nexus One and Droid run on?