Flash Support Will Never See Life On Google Chrome for Android

[macpro88]

The way it has always happened...supply and demand. If demand for Flash dries up, people will stop using it, right?

No one is forcing providers to use Flash. They are using it because it is giving them something HTML5 is not. If HTML5 is really as superior as you believe, then it stands to reason that providers will flock to it on their own. For the same reason they flocked to Flash in the first place.

Using browsers to force people to stop using something simply because you don't like the current standard is obnoxious and wrong IMO.

Keep up with what exactly? Android does EVERYTHING that Apple does and more. The reverse is not true.

Seems to me it is the other way around. The Android browser will display everything the iOS browser does.

Its not always about supply and demand though (albeit sometimes it is), but its also not about products that we as consumers see physically, there are a lot of hidden reasons and agendas out there that are transparent to the consumers that are the real force in why things happen in the tech world.

And lets be honest, would Android even exist if Apple hadn't released an iPhone? Sure, we might have had smart phones eventually but would it be called Android? Would it be as great and intuitive as it is now? Sure, NOW Android is better than iOS, but Android only exist because of iOS. Someone (Apple) came out with a product and it got popular, other companies (Google) took notice and needed to compete, thus came Android.

Its not always about supply and demand, wanting to compete and have a part of that market is also a factory.

And be honest with yourself, Apple has pushed for a lot of technological changes in the last 10 years and a lot of good has come of it (Android for one) and not only in the smarphone industry but across the board.

 

[macpro88]

I understand the concept of leaving something behind so that something else can flourish, but I don't think this is one of those cases.

I can agree with you here, but I guess its not up to us is it? As consumers sometimes we just have to go with the flow...

The way I see it:

Flash will stop being supported and cease to exist in browsers because of certain security flaws that are exploited in each version/update, to keep up with those security flaws, the app constantly needs to be updated and patched right? Well if a browser has to support both and websites can choose what standard to use to display their content in, than more than likely a good amount with just continue to use flash. Makes sense. Well, since a lot would still be using flash, now the app has to be maintained by adobe and support for updates has to continue. Adobe has made it clear it does NOT want to do this. So having a browser only support one standard eliminates the need for this right? Adobe doesn't want to have to support Flash anymore, and the only way around that is jump on the band wagon and side with browsers no longer supporting flash. Thus we no longer have a choice because who are we against corporations? Again, my opinion and the way I see it.

 

[RyanPm40]

To the people saying it's annoying to download/update flash: Do you realize you still need Javascript in HTML5? That stuff needs updating too!

 

[chefb]

ok Ive always wanted to know what popular site runs there video with this html....if not its based through the browser?... I mean the videos i watch all require flash.

 

[rjsurfer]

Not a big deal for me, I'm loving the beta so far. I already replaced the stock browser icon with the Chrome one on my bottom bar.

How do you do that? I'm lovin Chrome....

Ron W.

 

[JeffDenver]

Its not always about supply and demand though (albeit sometimes it is), but its also not about products that we as consumers see physically, there are a lot of hidden reasons and agendas out there that are transparent to the consumers that are the real force in why things happen in the tech world.

It is always about supply and demand. Even in your examples, the providers themselves would be the demand part. If HTML5 is really so much more appealing than Flash, there will be demand for it, and this demand will displace it's competitor (Flash).

By restricting browser access to the competition, you are placing artificial controls on it's competitor, which I think is unfair and unnecessary. There is still demand, but a minority is taking it upon themselves to deny supply for no other reason than their own preferences.

I disagree that they should be telling me what content I should be allowed to access. This is what Steve Jobs was doing and this is what Google is doing now. And it is bull****. And they deserved to be called out for it.

And lets be honest, would Android even exist if Apple hadn't released an iPhone?

That is like saying "would good exist if there wasn't evil?"...it is irrelevant in this context. Steve Jobs took a totalitarian approach to his product. Part of the reason for Android's success is that it took an OPPOSITE approach. Choice and individual freedom was a big draw of Android in the first place.

Ironically, you appear to be making my argument with your example. Would you want the iPhone stripped from Verizon and Sprint to make way for OUR preferred standard (Android)? Or do you think the vendors should allow both phones to be sold and let the market decide which is better? Android adoption would happen a lot faster if the iPhone was no longer allowed to be sold, right?

And be honest with yourself, Apple has pushed for a lot of technological changes in the last 10 years and a lot of good has come of it (Android for one) and not only in the smarphone industry but across the board.

I dont hate Apple. I hate the idea of a closed system. Apple just happens to be the largest example of it right now.

 

[macpro88]

I'm not saying I disagree with you Jeff, for the most part I agree with most of what you had to say, I have my opinions though and you have yours lol. Just the way it is and the way its gonna be.

We all also see and have different views on how and why these things happen and I have few different views on a few different things than you do and vice verse. I see one thing one way and you see one a different way, and in no way is my view or your view the correct way.

And the point I was trying to make with Android created because of iOS is that someone wanted to compete against iOS and thus came Android. So would Android have come out if iOS never existed in the first place? (and the whole good without evil thing, does't work, those are morals/ideas, were talking physical tangible products here that were created to compete for market and money.)

And I don't hate Apple either, I actually love most of their products including the i*hone but I don't rock one cause its too simple and easy to use for me, and having Android and how customizable it is is just plain fun for me. And there is actually nothing wrong with a closed system (so as long as a counter part is available, in this case Android) cause a closed system works, and Apple's success is shown by that, and as such are the largest example. The general consumer population who just want things to work don't care about closed/open systems.

But yes, Android adoption would grow fast if i*hone were not sold on Verizon or Sprint, I surely agree with you there, but no, I don't think phones should be carrier specific, I am in total favor of picking your phone first, then going to whatever carrier you want, with no restrictions on what phone works on what what network, and again with the whole Flash/HTML5 debate, I am in favor of letting the market choose as well, but since companies are trying so hard to kill Flash, I just wanna know what the reasons are and in such I'm trying to argue that point see what those reasons for killing it off might be, while someone else (you, Jeff) argues the other point so see what the other points are.

But dang Jeff I give you props for debating with me on this lol

 

[JeffDenver]

And the point I was trying to make with Android created because of iOS is that someone wanted to compete against iOS and thus came Android.

Android did not succeed just because someone wanted to compete with iOS. Lots of companies tried to compete with iOS and still failed. Android succeeded because there was DEMAND for an alternative to iOS. Android was supplying something that iOS was not, so people went there.

So would Android have come out if iOS never existed in the first place?

Yeah, probably. Because like I said, iOS just represents one idea of how things should be done. If it wasnt iOS, it would be someone else. Someone would have tried the nanny/totalitarian/I-know-whats-best-for-you approach. And a lot of people would still have found that appealing if it allowed for an appealing product to be delivered.

We have already seen this war before. This is just a rehash of the Mac vs PC crap from a few decades ago. And it will end exactly the same way IMO (and for the same reasons)...the open standards will dominate the market and the control-freak nanny standards will occupy niche markets.

Apple got a head start...that is the only reason they are doing as well as they have been. But as you can see from the marketshare figures, it didnt help them. Android came on the scene and rocketed past them, and is still increasing it's lead (although the rate of increase is slowing as the market becomes saturated). Apple started out way ahead of Android, and now Android is way ahead of Apple. Despite (and this is important) the fact that even Apple's detractors agree that they have an awesome product.

And there is actually nothing wrong with a closed system

I totally disagree with this, and I think the majority of people do too. A closed system locks you in and restricts your choices. It is no accident that owning Apple products costs a lot more than owning PC or Android alternatives. It is no accident that they use proprietary standards. Thats what closed systems lead to. Once you have committed cash to your closed system, you are a lot less likely to leave, which means you keep spending money on the closed system.

People arent stupid...they can see this. Thats why open systems are appealing. You are not trapped into one product in an open system. Open systems are also more likely to encourage competition for this reason.

a closed system works, and Apple's success is shown by that, and as such are the largest example. The general consumer population who just want things to work don't care about closed/open systems.

A closed system does not work better. See above. There are inherent weaknesses in a closed system that cant be avoided. Apple is successful because of their advertising IMO...not necessarily because their product is better.

But yes, Android adoption would grow fast if i*hone were not sold on Verizon or Sprint, I surely agree with you there, but no, I don't think phones should be carrier specific

Why not? Wouldn't it be better if everyone were on the better standard? This is what you were arguing when you argued in favor of browser restrictions. That the masses dont know what is best for them, so Google has to take the initiative and yank Flash support for their own good.

I am in total favor of picking your phone first, then going to whatever carrier you want, with no restrictions on what phone works on what what network, and again with the whole Flash/HTML5 debate, I am in favor of letting the market choose as well

So then, you think Google should include Flash support on Chrome? I was under the impression you were supporting their decision to exclude it.

 

[macpro88]

Android did not succeed just because someone wanted to compete with iOS. Lots of companies tried to compete with iOS and still failed. Android succeeded because there was DEMAND for an alternative to iOS. Android was supplying something that iOS was not, so people went there.

Right, there was as a demand for it because Apple had created iOS in the first place, without iOS would there have been a demand? Maybe, IDK. I know that other companies tried to compete with iOS and failed, I know that Android isn't and wasn't the only competitor. Android thrived and still thirves today and is ever growing today because of how open it is, but that does not make it better for everyone.

Yeah, probably. Because like I said, iOS just represents one idea of how things should be done. If it wasnt iOS, it would be someone else. Someone would have tried the nanny/totalitarian/I-know-whats-best-for-you approach. And a lot of people would still have found that appealing if it allowed for an appealing product to be delivered.

True

We have already seen this war before. This is just a rehash of the Mac vs PC crap from a few decades ago. And it will end exactly the same way IMO (and for the same reasons)...the open standards will dominate the market and the control-freak nanny standards will occupy niche markets.

Agree here as well

Apple got a head start...that is the only reason they are doing as well as they have been. But as you can see from the marketshare figures, it didnt help them. Android came on the scene and rocketed past them, and is still increasing it's lead (although the rate of increase is slowing as the market becomes saturated). Apple started out way ahead of Android, and now Android is way ahead of Apple. Despite (and this is important) the fact that even Apple's detractors agree that they have an awesome product.

Apple may have had a head start, but its hard to really compare market share, iOS is occupied on less than 10 devices. How many devices use Android? Thousands? I mean, sure that's Apple's fault for not allowing other companies use iOS, but that's just the way Apple is. I think comparing market share here is apples to oranges, IMHO, and If I remember correctly, iOS actually holds a higher Profit Share than Android does it not? If so, does Apple care about Market Share if its Profit Share is higher?

I totally disagree with this, and I think the majority of people do too. A closed system locks you in and restricts your choices. It is no accident that owning Apple products costs a lot more than owning PC or Android alternatives. It is no accident that they use proprietary standards. Thats what closed systems lead to. Once you have committed cash to your closed system, you are a lot less likely to leave, which means you keep spending money on the closed system.

Well you disagree cause you actually care. Others dont. And for those who don't care, there is nothing wrong with a closed system, cause well, they don't care. Just like my mom and sisters don't care, which is why they went from Android to iPhone. iPhone easier for them, iPhone is easier cause Apple controls all aspects, it works, and its a great products, again not for me, but there are ppl out there who really just don't care.

People arent stupid...they can see this. Thats why open systems are appealing. You are not trapped into one product in an open system. Open systems are also more likely to encourage competition for this reason.

I never said ppl are stupid, just when it comes to tech and phones and the such some ppl just don't care about the open/closed debate.

And you're right, it does encourage competition, between the likes of Moto and HTC and LG and Sammy all creating their own version of software on top of Android, this competition would not have come out if Android was closed.

A closed system does not work better. See above. There are inherent weaknesses in a closed system that cant be avoided. Apple is successful because of their advertising IMO...not necessarily because their product is better.

But a closed system can potentially work better. Both closed and open systems have weak and strong points, no system is perfect and will ever perfect. And yes, part of Apple's success is marketing, but you have to market a great product to be successful over the long run as they have done so.

Why not? Wouldn't it be better if everyone were on the better standard? This is what you were arguing when you argued in favor of browser restrictions. That the masses dont know what is best for them, so Google has to take the initiative and yank Flash support for their own good.

Define the better standard? We talking phones here or the Flash debate? With phones, again there is no perfect standard, the consumers get to pick here, and as they should, its their hard earned money that they get to spend on whatever phone they want.

With Flash vs HTML5, a majority of ppl really won't know what happened when the transition happens from Flash to HTML5 (a few might notice here and there), its just gonna be transparent, for us who actually look in on from the outside cause that's what we techies like to do, we actually see what's going on and forget that we represent a very very very small portion of the general public users. Unfortunetlly, the companies don't care about us when in regards to this transition. I highly doubt they do. So yes, in regards to HTML5 and Flash the masses really don't know what is best, they really don't, so Google, Adobe, and Apple are taking maters into their own hands.

So then, you think Google should include Flash support on Chrome? I was under the impression you were supporting their decision to exclude it.

Yes, because I think we should have a choice, I think we should have a choice because I see both sides of the argument and the transition won't be transparent to me.
No, because it will push the transition to HTML5 harder and faster, and the likes of Apple, Google, and Adobe supporting HTML5 over Flash tells us what? That it really is better and that its time for Flash to die off.

Will Flash die off slowly if everything supports both? I really don't know, probably? Who knows. But one thing is for sure, if those three companies want Flash to die, then Flash is going to die, we don't have a choice. But, why should we care right? If HTML5 is better and the transition is transparent for the most part, then why start huge wars and arguments and debates over it? Its a video player for our web content...

 

[Kag Pirate]

I was going to quote a few people here but I'll say it easier this way. The fact as many pointed out a browser that needs an plug-in / add-on as such as Flash seem a bit out dated and out place. I always have said if it's not broken do not fix it. Yet I get more flash crashes with content with both PC / Smart Phones. It's time to move on with an integrated [FONT=arial, sans-serif]browser that can perform just as well or even better. Yes to the one person said NFL.com, wow such an improvement with less flash, yet fantasy section still uses lots of flash but not as much as before. I do recall my phone had an issues with
flash trying to load the fantasy page to add and drop players. Which in turn made me lose the match up cause of a crash that occur due to slow 3g data stream. That's before NFL stream line the mobile site to work better with smart phones.
A slow move away is better then just drooping all together to be as seamless as one can be.

Other NOTE I NEED A NEW PHONE OG DROID LIMPING ALONG. [/FONT]

 

[JeffDenver]

Right, there was as a demand for it because Apple had created iOS in the first place

I disagree that Apple was the only one who could have created such a demand. I think any company that followed a closed model would have created a similar demand. Apple just happened to be the best at it.

Android thrived and still thirves today and is ever growing today because of how open it is, but that does not make it better for everyone.

It appears to make it better for most people. Marketshare doesnt lie. Every single Android owner had the option of choosing Apple (or going to a network to choose Apple) yet decided not to do so. And, as I said, Apple had a huge head start. They could not even maintain their lead...Android overtook them from a standstill in only a few years.

Apple may have had a head start, but its hard to really compare market share, iOS is occupied on less than 10 devices.

Yeah I hear this argument a lot. But here is why it is not valid:

1) That is a SELF IMPOSED restriction. Apple chooses to restrict itself in this way.
2) The reason they restrict themselves in this way is because they believe it is the only way to produce a polished product. In other words...they are admitting you cant have it both ways. If you are going to go with the closed model, you have to embrace it for it to work.

So no, I dont think it is hard to compare marketshare at all. Add up all the smartphones with Android and compare them to all the smartphones with Android and see which one is more. That is a completely fair Apples to Apples (lol) comparison.

How many devices use Android? Thousands? I mean, sure that's Apple's fault for not allowing other companies use iOS, but that's just the way Apple is.

So why doesn't Apple change it? See above.

The closed system model does not lend itself well to choice or variety, because that makes it a lot harder to support. And it has to be well supported to deliver the polished product. You cant have it both ways. Apple understands that, which is why they deny choice even though it would make them more popular to provide more choices.

I think comparing market share here is apples to oranges, IMHO, and If I remember correctly, iOS actually holds a higher Profit Share than Android does it not?

So what? No one has made the argument that Apple's model is not profitable. We are talking popularity with end users, not company profit.

If so, does Apple care about Market Share if its Profit Share is higher?

As an end user, I am ok with Apple rolling in money. They have my blessing. As long as they remain a niche, they can be as wealthy as they want and I wont care a bit. I just do not want their "I'm-the-boss-of-you" model to become the standard.

Well you disagree cause you actually care. Others dont. And for those who don't care, there is nothing wrong with a closed system, cause well, they don't care.

You would think so, but the first time they see their Android friends do stuff that their phone's cant, they will start to ask why. I saw this happen with my nephews. They started out as Apple fans, but they dont want iOS products anymore.

Just like my mom and sisters don't care, which is why they went from Android to iPhone. iPhone easier for them, iPhone is easier cause Apple controls all aspects, it works, and its a great products, again not for me, but there are ppl out there who really just don't care.

Yes, they are part of the niche market. The things that iOS cant do are things they dont care about. They are not part of the majority IMO.

But a closed system can potentially work better.

A closed system almost ALWAYS "works" better. But it will never allow for more options than an open system. It will always be self-limiting out of necessity. Because there are fewer models it will always lag behind in technology too. We saw this with the Mac and are seeing it again with the iPhone. The open system will attract more vendors and those vendors will put out products on their own schedules. So if you have 10 vendors you have new phones being released all the time.

Look at the iPhone 4S...no 720p display. We already have 3 Android phones with that and there will be many more before we see the iPhone 5. It is also limiting in other ways...no choice on display types (AMOLED/LCD) no choice on size. Things like that matter. People will not necessarily care if it "works" better if it doesnt have the other stuff they want.

Both closed and open systems have weak and strong points

The open system has more strong points. Thats why you are statistically 10 times more likely to be typing your post on a PC than a Mac.

Define the better standard? We talking phones here or the Flash debate?

We are using phones as an analog to the Flash debate. You were arguing in favor of Apple (restrictions on browsers for our own good) and I was arguing in favor of PC/Android (open is better, let the users decide).

With phones, again there is no perfect standard, the consumers get to pick here, and as they should, its their hard earned money that they get to spend on whatever phone they want.

Exactly...and the same thing should apply to HTML5 and flash. Let me (the end user) decide.

With Flash vs HTML5, a majority of ppl really won't know what happened when the transition happens from Flash to HTML5 (a few might notice here and there), its just gonna be transparent

If it was really transparent, then nobody would be complaining. The fact that this debate exists is evidence that the transition is not transparent. There is content you cant view with Chrome that you CAN view with the stock browser.

No, because it will push the transition to HTML5 harder and faster

I disagree that you know what is better for me (the end user) than I do.

Will Flash die off slowly if everything supports both? I really don't know, probably?

What do you mean "probably"? Are you saying it really is a question? That HTML5 might not be better than Flash? If it is so obviously better, what exactly would stop it from displacing Flash eventually?

Who knows. But one thing is for sure, if those three companies want Flash to die, then Flash is going to die, we don't have a choice.

We should have a choice to use what is currently available if we want to. There are still lots of sites using Flash. The current version of mobile flash will still view them. Therefore we should have access to the current version of mobile flash.

 

[xeene]

time to move on will be when nobody will be using flash. as of right now, majority of sites still use flash so not supporting such a popular feature is a failure in my opinion.

 

[JeffDenver]

You can move on if you want to. Flash is completely voluntary. You can choose not to install it if you dont want or need it.

Why cant we keep it that way with Chrome? What is the downside for you?

 

[cleevis]

I want to watch my girlfriend belly dance on my phone!

 

[cleevis]

Okay, I've said this before. And I lol. But tell your mother, or the nun, who happens to also be a wealthy aunt willing to pay for your wedding that you're marrying a belly dancer. Not that easy when you can't show them performances of what she really does. She's not some stripper that shows up at a party, she is a professional dancer.without flash, they may have never appreciated that.