Adobe Officially Kills New Flash Installations On Android 313
hypnosec writes "Adobe has announced that it will be making the Flash Player for Android unavailable for new devices and users from August 15 in continuation of its plan to discontinue development of Flash Player for mobile browsers. The company announced its decision through a blog post and further said that only those users who have already installed the flash player on their devices will be receiving any future updates. To ensure that this is the case, Adobe is going to make configuration changes on its Google Play Flash Player page."
Good riddance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash has always sucked on mobile. I'm glad Adobe is finally admitting it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flash has always sucked on mobile. I'm glad Adobe is finally admitting it.
I agree, but many sites still use it, unfortunately. Those sites will become unavailable if Flash is removed on mobile devices.
Which makes me wonder about the wisdom of this decision. As mobile devices become more popular, website designers are forced to make a choice; keep using Flash and be unavailable on mobile devices or redesign with a switch to something else. Adobe loses either way.
Re:Good riddance. (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems particularly curious to kill it when they already have(and are ostensibly releasing security updates for, to the degree Adobe ever manages that) Flash 'working' on Android versions up to 4.0
Do they gain something by killing their marketshare faster than they otherwise would through people gradually upgrading? Naively, I would think that they would try to milk the fuck out of that marketshare while they still can, and do some zealous hunting for alternatives.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I always wondered about that, why would they kill off something that is in a lot of web sites, and then I got all conspiracy theory and thought that they were in cahoots with Apple to kill Android, since Android was basically the only one that can support it, and is competition to Apple's clout
Re: (Score:3)
well, they called elop up for some tips. ..actually I'm thinking that adobe sells some expensive server-side solution for transferring vids to .h264 on the fly and sites/blogs/video services have to now do that.
losing options sucks anyhow.
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no reason to doubt the power of Adobe's marketing department; but server-side transcoding seems unlikely to be a very lucrative niche. Flash has supported h.264 video for a while now(since somewhere in the 8.x or 9.x window, I think) and much of the 'flash video' on the web, even if it still has a .swf or .flv extension, often turns out to be h.264. In that case, the only change they'll need to make is to the site code: instead of the "detect flash, if flash detected, play, else, tell them to go download flash", they'll need "detect flash, if flash detected, play, else, HTML5 play".
What will be interesting is if, for those customers who actually use the fancy 'flash video' features(RTMPe, anything DRM related, whatever 'adaptive streaming' sauce Adobe may have offered) will now have the exciting opportunity to purchase the Adobe Video Client SDK for Android in order to build apps to replace their now nonfunctional websites...
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the apk's will be available for loading onto rooted devices for a long time.
Don't need to be rooted to sideload an APK... it is just a checkbox away in standard Android settings.
Re:Good riddance. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is this "market" of which you speak? There is no market because Flash Player is given away. There's no money, in fact it is a drain on Adobe's resources.
Adobe makes its money on the content authoring tools. All they need to do is make those tools target HTML5 and H.264 and everything and everybody's happy. They still sell the authoring tools - in fact perhaps they sell more authoring tools - and they've transferred the drain of maintaining the target platform to the browser vendors.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect that that would be a no-go. They clearly don't much care about whatever pile of hacks and shims and eldrich blasphemy got Flash running on something that wasn't Win32; but I would strongly suspect that cross-platform stuff like, say, their precious little DRM system, that they hope will save them from HTML5 video by ensuring that 'premium content' providers remain loyal, is worth far more to them closed than open.
What surprises me, really, is that Adobe never got Flash to work properly even as the capabilities of handhelds have shot through the roof. Ok, Flash sucks on a 528MHz ARM11 with 192 MB of RAM and a painfully-underpolished Android 1.6 OS. Why does it still suck on systems with 2-4x as many cores(each clocked 2-3x faster and generally based on a more sophisticated ARM flavor), and a GB of RAM?
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Informative)
Multiple cores isn't going to help, processing is done in a single thread. Nor is more RAM, unless RAM was the problem to begin with. Most likely the bottleneck is the CPU, and I doubt you're really using a 3x faster CPU. Even if you are a 2-3x faster clock doesn't mean running code 2-3x faster- things like cache misses and mispredicted branches don't scale. Also remember that IPC is generally lower on ARM than on comparable x86 chips, so comparing raw numbers isn't that much of a help.
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Informative)
Yup. Flash always sucked on low powered CPUs like Atom. It'll consume 20% on a modern fast CPU with accelerated video and if you don't have video acceleration it'll be much higher. .flv files and played them with VLC - no problem.
On an Atom Netbook with Intel GMA under Linux it's unusable. I disabled the plugin, downloaded the
Re:Good riddance. (Score:5, Informative)
Look into Flash+AIR, you can build Flash content into mobile apps for iOS and Android, and this support some of the latest+greatest features, such as Stage3D (hardware-accelerated 3D graphics API)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It still sucks.
I will not install AIR on my device, ever.
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That defeats the ability to access the info quickly, which is what a web site did. Now you expect someone to install an app? People are already slowing down on that because of all the security issues. Presumably most apps are not an issue. But enough are that people are learning to just not install anything that comes around. The app model is basically dangerous because Android doesn't isolate them very well (neither does iOS for that matter).
Re: (Score:2)
Then why is there an AIR installer in the market?
Why have some of the Amazon free apps of the day required you to have it installed to use their app?
Adobe Edge (Score:2)
Adobe loses either way.
Not if Adobe produces tools to recompile existing Flash vector animations into JavaScript+SVG or JavaScript+Canvas and recompile ActionScript into JavaScript. Isn't Adobe Edge part of this effort?
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens to Adobe when this upgrade is complete?
Re:Adobe Edge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Insightful)
Adobe cared about selling the Flash creation tools not the Flash platform itself. They'll just change the tools to export HTML5.
Re:Good riddance. (Score:5, Funny)
Those sites will become unavailable if Flash is removed on mobile devices.
Re: (Score:3)
They have worked for years (Score:3)
I agree, but many sites still use it, unfortunately. Those sites will become unavailable if Flash is removed on mobile devices.
No, they are available today.
Thanks to iOS devices, for a few years now pretty much any Flash site you can think of has in fact worked fine without Flash. You just don't know it because by default they give you Flash if you can.
Pretty much only Flash game sites remain as things that cannot easily be transitioned to running wholly without Flash, but in case you had not noticed a lot
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Any site that is UNUSABLE without Flash will either adapt, or die. And thank goodness for that.
Flash was (still is?) a great way to provide an enhanced experience for desktop users. Any web developer worth the title would provide fallbacks for critical path functionality.
People that built nav menus, or unskippable intros, or (heaven forbid) entire sites out of Flash without proper fallbacks should be rounded up and shot in the head.
Progressive enhancement. Graceful degradation. These are not buzzwords, t
Re:Good riddance. (Score:4, Informative)
There is an android youtube app. On top of this youtube supports HTML5, so you don't need flash for it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're at least a year behind; videos that play an ad spot before viewing work fine on HTML5 now, or at least they did on my phone yesterday.
Re: (Score:3)
I created a few games in Flash for playing in a webbrowser, and for the lols I also tried it on an Android, and it worked quite well actually! Sad to see it go.
Flash allows creating a complete game with all graphics, audio, etc... in a single file, that works the same on almost all platforms. This is quite handy. So I really wish Flash to stay strong, and, have a fully perfect open source player (in other words, have the official player itself be open source).
Re: (Score:2)
> For games it was almost usable, for video it was and still is horrid.
That's a lie! All games on Newgrounds and other such websites work perfect, even in multiplayer etc.... And for video: Youtube also always worked perfectly with Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wasn't it already dead? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm certain it was Steve Jobs that killed Adobe Flash player on mobile devices a couple years ago.
Die flash die! (Score:5, Insightful)
These words have been a mantra of mine for years. I suspect that many other people share this worldview. The death of flash cannot come soon enough for many, many good reasons.
I'll light the bonfire, who's bringing the beer? Is killing flash the best thing Steve Jobs ever did?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand this hate! Most games that work on Linux are written in Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
you want adobe to blow cash on development so you can play free games?
Re: (Score:2)
You can develop these games with the open source flex framework. You write actionscript code and get all the resources (images etc...), and compile it all into one swf file that works everywhere.
This is the thing I find weird: Adobe made the developer tools to create an swf open source, but not the player to view them...
Re: (Score:2)
EDIT: But with the good tools to create these games, Adobe earns cash so ...
Re: (Score:2)
You can develop these games with the open source flex framework. You write actionscript code and get all the resources (images etc...), and compile it all into one swf file that works everywhere.
There are paid developers behind Adobe Flex too, no matter how open source it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"the flash, the!"
hey, anyone who speaks german can't be all bad.
Missing the point (Score:3)
You're missing the point: it's not the platform, it's the apps.
While the Flash plugin was never great, there's a reason Flash lived for so long -- fantastic authoring tools. Drag-and-drop GUIs, full featured IDEs, etc. made it a snap to build great looking Flash apps.
Until HTML5 has equivalent authoring tools, it's not truly going to be able to replace Flash.
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't want something dead, you should want a better technology to replace it.
Strange direction (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never seen a company "give up" like this. I would have thought Adobe would have a vested interest in making their software work on a platform everyone is clamoring to dominate. It's like they just said "meh,.. F- it". They also discontinued Flash on Linux (not sure about mac).
Re: (Score:2)
Are they committing suicide?
First they give up on Linux Flash, now Android Flash. Can't quite figure it out.
Have they been afflicted by the RDF?
Re: (Score:2)
adobe sells development software. their other products are already used in the development of mobile software. the probably didn't see a need for Flash
believe it or not Adobe also has HTML5 development software they sell
Re: (Score:2)
believe it or not Adobe also has HTML5 development software they sell
Does it have a similar feature set compared to Flash? Are things like animation and syncing audio supported? Can you create vector graphics and have it exported as a canvas or SVG? I think it's going to be a bitch to transition to HTML5 for creating e-learning content. The ideal situation would be that Flash would be able to export to HTML5 without losing any functionality, I can't see that happening though.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it have a similar feature set compared to Flash? Are things like animation and syncing audio supported? Can you create vector graphics and have it exported as a canvas or SVG? I think it's going to be a bitch to transition to HTML5 for creating e-learning content. The ideal situation would be that Flash would be able to export to HTML5 without losing any functionality, I can't see that happening though.
No, But some years ago when this roadmap was made it was supposed to happen "real soon now"(tm)(html5 getting to that stage on all browsers including mobiles).
Re:Strange direction (Score:5, Insightful)
The flash runtime is really only a cost for them: they have to maintain it ('cause it's so secure!), optimize it, and port it to a lot of platforms.
What they make money on is the flash toolkit. Adobe has decided that maintaining the runtime isn't worth is and instead moving their toolkit over to HTML 5 (and continuing along with being able to export video, etc). Really, it's mostly a win for them. They kept going along with the runtime because it did afford them certain benefits, the install base (which they monopolize) in particular... I think I hear it was something like 90% which probably beats HTML 5 by a wide margin. However, they see the writing on the wall: HTML 5 is getting more common and flash player less. They have a mature toolkit and it's time they compete on that alone and stop wasting (excess) resources working on a costly* side project that really only made sense half a decade ago.
(*I mean seriously, in terms of bad PR alone...)
Re: (Score:2)
you've never seen Microsoft discontinue support for old versions of VB?
Re: (Score:2)
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The irony is that Adobe does not see that by dropping support for platforms, fewer developers will want to use Flash because it is no longer "cross-platform." And if fewer developers want to use Flash, then fewer people will consume Flash content ... and eventually Adobe will decide to drop support on yet another platform because fewer people are consuming Flash there. The cycle feeds itself. It's only a matter of time before Flash goes away entirely.
This is not
Flash exclusivity to Windows and Surface coming? (Score:3)
Adobe certainly hates Linux/Android and had some feuds with Apple too, so this might not be completely off idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's [slashdot.org] the /. story from earlier this year. They're discontinuing the standalone Linux plugin, but made a deal with Google to support a new Pepper-API version of it in Chrome. Apparently Chrome-only, because nobody else so far is implementing that API.
Gordan's alive! (Score:3, Funny)
- Prince Vultan
Re: (Score:2)
Dispatch war rocket JQuery to bring back his body!
(Line from 2012 remake)
grab a copy now? (is it possible) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
sure you can get it from the same place as the COBOL compiler
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Kongregate (Score:2)
This is a really bad day to be working for Kongregate.
HTML5 on Kongregate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to say "oh, good to know." But then I clicked on the link...
It has, um, 15 games.
Flash still unlikely to go away. (Score:4)
I do not see the need for a flash player going away any time soon due to the immense amount of content in Flash. Flash is so widespread it is hard to get rid of. It seems Adobe is attacking Google here, perhaps because Google is switching to HTML5.
I agree it would be best for Flash to disappear, Adobe is a corrupt, evil company that uses various unsavory practices. But how to get contnent developers to stop using it? As long as people keep making stuff in flash unfortunately it will remain popular. Part of the issue is making a good replacement for flash. HTML5 helps a.lot with this but as well what really makes flash popular is that developers love Adobe Flash development tools. The sad thing is flash's development tools are very popular with developers and I do not see them giving up flash until something better comes along. I have yet to see anything come along that actually can exceed the features and ease of use of Adobes tools.
Many here presume Flash will go away. This is sort of like saying Linux will become popular, people here do not understand why people use software, they use software because it works well. Adobe has great tools that work well and just expecting people to stop using them when there are no alternatives or the alternatives are inferior is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
The emergence of tools to convert Flash to other formats would allow developers to continue using Flash for development while still enabling web sites to avoid delivering Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
so how am I gonna read restaurant websites? (Score:3)
Hell is going to freeze over before most of the restaurants I visit build usable websites. Now they won't be viewable from mobile at all!
Then patronize the restaurants' competitors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mystery meat navigation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really plan to patronize mega-chains, and sadly most of the mom-and-pop restaurants around here do not have modern websites.
An exception is some that are so behind on technology that they use 1990s-era web technology, which is actually readable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Trepidity [slashdot.org] is talking about big evil corporate chains.
Re: (Score:2)
Or call them up, tell them about the situation, and offer to redo their web site for the going rate.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some new thing coming around called HTML5.
Re: (Score:2)
Pluggers only go to Country Kitchen Buffet anyway, grandpa.
For those of us who develop on Flash... (Score:3)
Flash wasn't just about videos and ads on the internet. Some of us developed useful applications like forms for front line people, reports for pointed hair people and video games (look up sharpform - a lot of video game UI's run on Flash). Its sad that the platforms it supports is shrinking and not growing.
Ages ago when I worked for Adobe - an internal conference was show casing everything they just acquired from Macromedia. The mantra was "the future of the company is everything we just acquired" (that wasn't the official mantra, but after attending plenty of developer sessions that was what I was feeling) - I'm sure that is still true to a certain extent, but there was a genuine feeling that Flash could actually take on Java as a web runtime - especially because we were going to have the worlds first full runtime on a mobile device (at the time they were talking about Symbian and WebOS).
Don't laugh - one of the internet's biggest websites youtube.com runs on top of Flash media server :) (or at least it used to!). Also this was long before HTML-5 and Javascript was showing any promise. If you wanted to have a rich web app your choices were Java or Flash.
Not Going Away (Score:2)
Re:VM within VM within VM. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The most annoying thing about Netflix in a browser...
Re:I wonder how many fools.. (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that Flash videos are just H.264 in MP4, right? It's been this way for years. Almost no one uses Sorenson for Flash video anymore.
Vector animation (Score:2)
You do realize that Flash videos are just H.264 in MP4, right?
Prior to the use of H.264, it was H.263. Prior to H.263, and continuing for some time after H.263, it was vectors. For example, Weebl's Stuff, Homestar Runner, and most of the animations on Newgrounds and Albino Blacksheep are vectors. What tool for authoring Canvas or SVG vector animations for an HTML5 environment do you recommend?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that Flash videos are just H.264 in MP4, right? It's been this way for years. Almost no one uses Sorenson for Flash video anymore.
Right. So exactly why do we need Flash for web video? We don't. It's superfluous. Now it's gone from mobile, we just need to clear it off the rest of the internets.
Video is ten times bigger than vectors (Score:2)
So exactly why do we need Flash for web video? We don't. It's superfluous.
We don't need it for web video, where "video" refers to compressed sequences of pixel-based images. But we still need it for web vector animation. I tried converting a .swf vector animation to video by rasterizing each frame of the animation and compressing the frames as a video, and the file size bloated by a factor of ten.
Vectors (Score:2)
Flash video IS H.264 in almost every case
How big would "Badger Badger Badger", a 36-second vector animation loop, become if converted from vectors to H.264? Or "We Drink Ritalin", a music video for a John Desire song? Or "French Erotic Film", a music video for an Ome Henk song?
Re: (Score:2)
A few megs? Even if it was a few hundred MBs, this is 2012. Takes no time at all over 4G.
Re:I wonder how many fools.. (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to be arguing against a point I never tried to make. But for content providers the video streaming framework is still more mature than for HTML5 video. That is why people still use it. My point was only about addressing the complaint of getting rid of Flash meant it was being replaced by H.264, but this is silly since Flash video IS H.264 in almost every case nowadays.
Didn't mean to sound argumentative... was more exuberant. Flash, however, was never needed for what it was used for 99% of the time. Another thread mentioned Black and Tans... so I thought of a terrible metaphor. Flash is like Harp... a decent pale lager, but it becomes exceptional when mixed properly, wrapped, as it were, around Guinness ... which unfortunately for this metaphor can only be vector animation or a web game. So... Adobe says "Hey! What's good for Guiness is good for EVERYTHING! Mix it with your gin! It's a better vermouth! Mix it with your whiskey, it's a better sour!" Trouble is, Harp doesn't mix that well with anything but Guinness, no matter what the bartender says. And eventually, people will start hating Harp... because its just awful when it's used improperly, and unless it's by itself or with Guinness, it's being used improperly. Flash was never intended to be a video wrapper... that was just something that it could do but only did well during the very earliest part of the last decade under special circumstances, before bandwidth was taken for granted. Adobe kept leveraging it for video, however, long after it was reasonable to do so. Eventually, everyone hates Flash and forgets that its actually a decent app platform and wonderful for vector animation. Had Adobe stepped back off pushing it as a video wrapper, for which it is terrible for the extra processing overhead, and left it to find it's true usefulness, perhaps most web users wouldn't despise it.
Re: (Score:2)
So WHY do we need two implementations, with one of them (flash) loaded with unfixable and inscrutable (closed code) security issues?
Re: (Score:3)
Will realise they've just cheered away a product that works for one that doesn't.
Flash was shite, it was a slow, buggy, CPU chewing pile of scrotum. I'll be the first to admit that but flash did everything it said on the tin and a bit more. HTML5 at current cant even do what it says on its own tin, let alone half of what was on Flash's tin.
We've traded away a slow, reliable and butt ugly mechanic for a person who cant even tell the difference between a valve and a vagina and people are happy about this.
For
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The killer feature for Android is that it releases better, faster, and more feature rich phones several times a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually most Android phones are schlock with low res screens and running ancient Android versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are several better, faster, more feature rich Android phones released each year. Just buy one of the good ones.
That depends on available carriers (Score:2)
Just buy one of the good ones.
That depends on which carriers the good ones work on. The budget carriers in the United States, for example, tend to run CDMA2000 instead of GSM, and CDMA2000 is much worse than GSM/UMTS at letting customers bring their own phone. Which U.S. carrier offers voice and data service as cheap as Virgin Mobile's $35/mo plan yet allows customers to bring their own phone? Or is a customer supposed to buy two phones: one to run apps (as if it were a 4" tablet) and one to make calls?
Re: (Score:2)
"Most" windows systems are still running a 10 year old version.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is amazing isn't it?
Slashdot before Android:Flash sucks, it's closed and proprietary:
Slashdot after Flash was available for Android and not iOS: Flash is great! It lets us view the whole web!
Slashdot after Adobe kills Flash on Android: Flash sucked anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dedicated iPlayer app (Score:2)