
It's still unclear whether having Flash is better than not having Flash. - technologizer
http://technologizer.com/2011/03/18/flash-xoom/
======
thailandstartup
Click to Flash is the ideal middle ground for mobile devices. Only play the
Flash when the user explicitly requests. 90% of the time, the user won't
notice the Flash missing, the other 10% it is available on request. That
solves the battery issues and the annoying advertisement issues.

~~~
yardie
I don't think Click to Flash is the optimal solution. On the PC side it still
loads Flash objects, they just aren't displayed. It also skews feedback. If
developers think that flash is being represented in mobile devices when its
not that only causes them to divert resources from creating mobile HTML
versions of sites.

~~~
masklinn
There could be a ClickToFlash version not loading Flash objects at all until
requested couldn't there? Of course it would probably be for all <embed> and
<object>, but...

~~~
wtallis
That's the core functionality of NoScript: don't allow anything more
complicated than HTML+CSS until authorized by the user. It blocks objects but
by default leaves behind a rectangle you can click to download and run the
object.

------
icarus_drowning
For me, this seems pretty simple: if it is shown that Adobe can create a
version of Flash that alleviates problems with poor battery life and terrible
performance, obviously it will be "better to have Flash". So long as those
problems persist, Flash seems like a lot more of a liability than an asset.

~~~
code_duck
I'd add 'security' in there, too. The situation is already looking worthy of
concern on Android and other open mobile OSs. Do we need one more attack
vector? Particularly a platform with a history like Flash?

~~~
tptacek
CSS3 is also worthy of concern. It's true that the security concern is
different, and it's true that the security concerns are in general cumulative,
but it's not like you can decisively say "things that add to the attack
surface are bad".

~~~
trotsky
I think it's pretty safe to say that Adobe code bases have more or less earned
themselves a special line item in the security concerns list at this point.

~~~
tptacek
You could --- and I'm not just saying this to be argumentative --- say the
same thing about parts of Webkit.

I want to be clear that I agree that Flash adds more than a banana-equivalent
dose of insecurity. I just worry about the notion that the rest of the system
is much better.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I'd argue the same could be said for the functionality of Flash. Yes, watching
video via Flash can start the fans flying, particularly on OS X before Apple
allowed them access to the hardware. But, it's not like displaying highly
encoded H.264 and allowing people to manipulate the resulting output is easy.
The last comparison I saw showed only IE9 convincingly beating Flash in this
task, and the big outliers were some of the browsers like Safari on Windows
which was abysmal, whereas Flash was solidly good across platforms and
browsers. And I'm guessing that performance in other areas is a clearer win
for Flash.

I have ideological reasons for not liking Flash, but clearly my brand of
ideology isn't as good at mass-mind control and reality-re-defining as the
Apple-ideologues. I'll be glad to see it go, I just wish it was because people
thought that core web technologies should be open with multiple interoperable
implementations, rather than because of a concerted campaign of misinformation
and misdirection about performance.

~~~
tptacek
I think you may have accidentally replied to the wrong comment.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Your point appeared to be that Flash is insecure, but that the things proposed
to replace it e.g. Webkit, CSS3 implementations suffer from similar issues. My
point was that, similarly, its performance problems with video are shared by
other browsers when implementing the same functionality.

------
mcritz
I think there are five major points of failure for Flash on tablets.

1\. Flash integration into system battery management.

2\. Software support for hardware acceleration, both for video, 3D, and 2D.

3\. Flash objects' use of network hardware.

4\. Flash memory caching / swaps.

5\. Android allocation of processor usage for Flash VM.

Implementing a Flash VM that doesn't crush your battery requires addressing
all these points. This will be especially hard to support the plurality of
hardware and OS varieties.

------
marcusbooster
I really thought I'd miss Flash for certain sites, but it turns out that if it
can't be done with html5 then there's usually "an app for that".

------
jsz0
I can't stand the middle-ground of things 'sorta working' I would rather have
it be either fully functional or non-existant.

------
mrinterweb
I think that the big news with Flash 10.2 is that it does have hardware
acceleration for video. [http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2011/02/flash-
player-10-2...](http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2011/02/flash-
player-10-2-launch.html) The article suggests that 10.2 is not hardware
accelerated.

~~~
metageek
It's not enabled in the beta, that's all.

~~~
mrinterweb
I see. I just checked the release notes
<http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89556.html>

"Please note that this feature has been turned off for this Beta release, but
will be available in the final Flash Player 10.2 release."

"Please note that GPU rendering was turned off for this Beta release."

It will be interesting to see how well it performs when they enable the
hardware acceleration in the final 10.2 release.

------
tlear
This is what will determine RIM's fate in a few weeks, if playbook flash is
just as bad then they are pretty much done for.

~~~
wtallis
You say that as though the PlayBook actually has a chance of catching on in a
big way. Even if it did, it wouldn't hinge solely on Flash support.

RIM has never done a great job targeting the consumer market, and their
enterprise customer base is still pretty loyal. Even if the PlayBook fails to
change that, RIM will not go bankrupt before they have time to try again.

------
mkramlich
Reading that article I could almost hear Steve Jobs over my shoulder saying,
"I told you so."

------
barista
I think flash is just a stopgap until something faster and native comes from
android. Both MSFT and AAPL are not supporting it on their mobile platform.
Android only supports it because they don't have any other options.

~~~
jmillikin
Android already supports Theora, WebM, and H.264 -- what do you feel its
native support is lacking?

Manufacturers put Flash on tablets/phones as mindless "differentiation", an
extra checkbox to wave in front of consumers. There's no technical reason for
Android to support Flash, and (as this article demonstrates) numerous good
reasons not to.

~~~
danenania
Forgetting that there is a ton of popular flash content on the web? Outside
the developer community, people don't care about how the content they're
interested in is delivered, they just want access. It isn't hard to criticize
the implementation of flash on mobiles, but there are obviously strong
arguments for including it on a platform. It's clearly a LOT more than an
'extra checkbox'.

~~~
twocentswanted
Right. Thanks to flash compatibility on my phone, I can watch/listen to a lot
of content that cannot be rendered on an iDevice. That's a meaningful
differentiator.

