Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jun 2012 18:38 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless And so, Flash on mobile is now completely dead. "There will be no certified implementations of Flash Player for Android 4.1. Beginning August 15th we will use the configuration settings in the Google Play Store to limit continued access to Flash Player updates to only those devices that have Flash Player already installed. Devices that do not have Flash Player already installed are increasingly likely to be incompatible with Flash Player and will no longer be able to install it from the Google Play Store after August 15th."
Thread beginning with comment 524335
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

This is an example of a business totally dropping the ball on a major focal point of their business. They COULD have put more effort into making Flash perform well on more platforms, using less CPU time, more acceleration hardware, etc. But they didn't. They COULD have open sourced it, but they didn't. They even had a good shot to get it right on Android, and they flubbed that too.

It makes me wonder if this was intentional. Did Adobe execs decide that Flash and Flash-related tools just weren't the source of enough revenue to take seriously? Or did they just screw themselves out of incompetence?

Reply Score: 3

YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

I guess it's a completely unmaintainable code base. Improving it is probably impossible and open sourcing would be embarrassing. It's from the 90's.

Edited 2012-06-29 20:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

It's from the 90's.


It is not a valid argument at all.

Almost all software we depend upon has been implemented in the 80s and 90s.

Java is so 90s; Linux is 90s based in an OS created in the 70s.
Windows is 90s; .NET is 2000s but runs on top of Windows...

The "real world" programming languages were born at 70s and 80s.
So, telling some technology comes from the 90s sounds contemporary and really current... to me.

Reply Parent Score: 7

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Photoshop, illustrator, acrobat (Creative Suite in general) is Adobe's bread winner. Flash is just one small part, plus it's an acquired technology (being Macromedia prior to purchase.)

I very much doubt Adobe makes any money directly from Flash content, so it's really just the tools. If they move the tools to HTML5, they lose no money from the users who will purchase new CS upgrades and such anyway, plus they then remove the Flash stigma. Full of WIN from my viewpoint.

Reply Parent Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

This is an example of a business totally dropping the ball on a major focal point of their business. They COULD have put more effort into making Flash perform well on more platforms, using less CPU time, more acceleration hardware, etc.

That seems to hardly matter - for example, the implementations of HTML5 video in desktop browsers often manage, somehow, to be more demanding on resources than Flash (which can be particularly felt on older machines; where redirecting video streams to mplayer browser plugin is still much better, anyway)

And Flash isn't at a focal point of their business (hell, Adobe gives it away for free), tools for "creative" professionals are.

Reply Parent Score: 2