back to article Android Jelly Bean won't get Flash Player

As part of the slow death of Adobe's Flash Player, the company has announced it won't be making a certified version for Android's new 4.1 OS – aka Jelly Bean. Adobe said on its blog that it won't be developing Flash for Android 4.1. The software company said it will also start taking steps to phase the player out of the Google …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

I-0 to Steve Jobs and Apple.

5
15
Anonymous Coward

But how does he feel about the victory?

7
1

1-0 to Steve Jobs and Apple.

I don't get how you figure that. iOS supports one option, Android supports both, and the rest of the world isn't/wasn't nearly ready enough for HTML5, making Android the superior offering for a decent amount of time. All this does is bring Android back to iOS' level, not make iOS any better.

20
4

Because...

1-0 to Steve Jobs and Apple doesn't mean iOS is "better". It means that Steve Jobs correctly saw the way that Flash was going and arguably accelerated its demise by refusing to support it.

That's a victory in my book.

12
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: Because...

Yeah, in fairness I thought the majority of Job/Apple's actions were just petulant shite, but I did hope that his tantrums would overthrow flash, if only because it's shit.

12
1

@Nervosa

Erm...what? HTML5, including video, was a spec that Google worked on. A lot of people worked on it, even before the W3C accepted it. Everyone knew and indeed intended that Flash would eventually die off with this next generation. And that makes Jobs some kinda of visionary? My arse.

10
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Because...

He had some pretty good reasons.

1. It was designed for the desktop, keyboard and mouse with large screen.

2. Flash on the Mac is generally poor just like on Linux (or when I last tried it).

3. It holds back development of a richer web.

2
3
FAIL

Re: Because...

Flash was available on phones for a long time and will be for a long time yet. Just because it's getting to the end of its lifespan because it has been superseded doesn't mean all those millions of handsets sold with it on were mistakes.

If you had never bought a VHS video, would you be claiming a victory now, or would you just have missed a lot of TV over the years?

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Because...

FLASH may be shit in a number of ways, but it still does a few things that HTML5 will not. HTML5 video needs to support DRM and streaming. Until it does that, a lot of people are going to be using alternatives. Which is a shame because it would be great to use something more standardised, less changing all the time and more easily distributable (no headaches wondering what version someone has or whether they'll be able to install it with their company policy).

0
1
Facepalm

Cool down, no is trying to say android sucks so no need to work up a fanboy rage.

The point is Jobs said no flash because basically it sucks for phones. Fandroids disagreed and made it out like their platform will be so awesome because it'll support flash too.

Well it turns out Jobs was right, flash does indeed suck on phones. The difference is he defends his product's image more and won't let bad technology have a chance to fail where as google was happy to let flash fall on its ass on android.

3
7

Re: Because...

Flash lite was still crap and yes its performance was better but the fact it was different enough that it didn't get widespread usage and, imo, show most of its failings. Though arguable it's biggest failing was that it was different and it didn't (couldn't) do anything about the fact most flash content assume you have a mouse and will not work with a touch screen.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Because...

Add DRM and you will get all the stuff you don't like.

It will be cracked in 5 seconds. They will keep changing in a hopeless attempt to keep ahead. It will only be available on some platforms, Some will use different types of DRM (Sony phones will have some crap Sony DRM I expect).

As long as they feel they need DRM for video they will need crap like iTunes/Flash/WMP. And the stuff will still get ripped and torrented 5 minutes after it's posted.

1
0

"Cool down, no is trying to say android sucks so no need to work up a fanboy rage."

Nice try, but I use Maemo. Try making a valid point without an ad hominem next time.

Apple launched an inferior product, then tried to pull a Microsoft and claim the inferiorities were features. Love your iPhone status symbol more because it does less. Saying that Flash would die off with HTML5 is as wise as pointing out the certainty of day following night.

I guess I just don't get how the world works inside the reality distortion field, where supporting only one format is *better* than supporting both...

5
5
Anonymous Coward

@greg

Flash was a battery killing piece of shit that reduced the value of every phone it mostly failed to run on. As for inferior product. The user experience was clearly superior to the other smartphones on the market at the time.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Because...

"Add DRM and you will get all the stuff you don't like."

What - like being able to rent movies online? Because that's actually something I do like. Like being able to sell or rent web-based games as a business model making it worth my while to write them. Like being able to buy stuff with actual money rather than by being subjected to 5 second advertising interrupts every ten minutes? Like being able to offer some content online without my customers just being able to click 'Save As...'

"It will be cracked in 5 seconds. They will keep changing in a hopeless attempt to keep ahead"

It has obviously escaped your notice, but some of the modern DRM is actually bloody hard to crack. All those ripped movies you see online... they come from DVDs, not Zune movie rentals. As to the "hopeless attempt to keep ahead", *shrug* technology moves forward and industries adapt. If you expect one system to have been produced that will never need updating, you are naive. It's not a weakness that old methods are replaced by newer and more secure ones.

"It will only be available on some platforms"

You obviously chose to skip over that the entire point of my post expressing the hope that a standards body would create a standards compliant version that all could implement. As it is, there doesn't seem to be much willingness to fill this need by the Web Standards bodies, which means they will (yet again) be bypassed by Industry doing it itself. This has already started to happen.

1
3
Thumb Down

No, Jobs said "no flash" because he couldn't make money from flash applications. It was very little to do with the crapness of flash and very much to do with the desire to fleece the sheep.

6
2
Thumb Down

Re: Because...

"holds back development of a richer web"

What a load of tosh. There's loads of advanced functionality that can be done in flash that can't be done at all in html5, and plenty more that can be done in a reasonably cross platform and browser way that you won't be able to do for perhaps another 5 years due to cross browser incompatibility in html5.

That's without mentioning how javascript is positively retarded compared to actionscript, and how flash managed to iterate and deploy new versions with new technology a lot more rapidly than can ever be hoped for from the w3c

0
1

Re: Because...

They come from DVD and Blu-ray and unprotected TV (broadcast) streams because they offer better quality. Webrips are around too, and all the built in DRM's in the Adobe platform is circumventable. There are tools for most services to circumvent the protection. Standard bodies of the web can't and will not standardize and implement DRM, it's up to others. They can't implement stuff that aren't royalty free. Make such a DRM free to implement and any one can do it, to save those streams. That is how they work. So the alternative for Flash player on cell phones is reasonably only apps that uses DRM-protected stuff. Closed code. Instead of air we will see other attempts of creating and packing apps for online content. Less platforms will have them. It simply will not be available in the video tag and a lot of the business it self has missed that and hopes for some DRM-solution that will never come. It's still years away for all the technology to take hold so Adobe is to early here. DRM and black boxes solves nothing by it self.

Those that can't think in other terms will loose out of course, others are powerful enough to be able to have those sought after apps, and services, integrate into your home cinema/living room and be on dedicated devices for 70 bucks or whatever. As of yet those services that actually has more to offer then services with physical media is however only available in USA. Content always get out and always has, I have free and legal access to newspapers, magazines and books at the library foreign authors don't even get any money for it. Yet people pay for media and will continue to. Neither are any content in my country available in the Zune video marketplace so there is nothing to rip. HDCP is easy enough to strip so that is no problem either, every tv does it. Even if you don't bother to write a software that can break into and rip streams from their services. Stuff is always available in other ways too. Ripping will occur at the ones of highest quality and earliest release. Netflix expanded and became big in online videos despite that you could rip all their content. Despite that when you make decisions based on DRM-platforms you run into other problems, their VC-1 powered service runs into problems even though it's quite easy to decode because their silverlight solution won't hardware accelerate VC-1. They will probably switch to more standard approach later because of that. The problem is that there still will be a big divide between their approach kinda standardized and the open web. You will even on PC's probably need to install separate software applications to be able to use those services at all in the future, it's however not the webs fault that companies is turning away and turning to a black box approach. DRM's will always be broken, and it's only based on business not technical decisions they will choose to corner of from the web. Not that you couldn't run a business with content that is rippable, everybody does so today. Studios might not like it,yet they put up plenty of stuff at youtube which offers zero protection and host their stuff with pure http (progressively downloading the MP4 files while playing.).

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Nervosa

"Everyone knew and indeed intended that Flash would eventually die off with this next generation. And that makes Jobs some kinda of visionary? My arse."

So Google said no to Flash first then? Hang on, didn't Google actively court Adobe and work with them to get Flash on their devices? Doesn't parctically every braying fandroid list "It supports Flash" as a pro of the OS? Like it or not, Jobs called this. Oh, and Google did't single handedly work on HTML5 as your utterings seemingly suggest; the instigators and early developers of HTML5 were Opera, Mozilla and Apple. Fandroids are worse than fanboys of the fruit if anyone dares suggest that the internets of pretty much any facet of mobile computing weren't actually invented by Google!

0
0
Meh

No Jelly Beans on my Ice Cream Sandwich

For me, this may limit me from upgrading from ICS to JB - Its always useful to have Flash on a mobile browser and not have to worry. Even unsupported, Flash will take a long time to die on the Internet, so I guess 'droid owners will have to get used to the equvialent of the little blue box that appears on IOS.

I guess Adobe are stuck between a rock and a hard place - they want to sell their new HTML5 ready toolsets by making Flash obsolete, but have to acknowledge that change takes time.

I just hope the 'other' browsers continue to support flash for a few years yet until it goes the way of the Hamster Dance.

6
1

Re: No Jelly Beans on my Ice Cream Sandwich

Just because they say its not supported wont magically change all the old websites overnight.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: No Jelly Beans on my Ice Cream Sandwich

I was one of those people who had RealPlayer on his/her PC when FireFox 13 + new Flash came out. I was quite surprised by how many websites that are still using Flash, and how inconvenience it was not to have it running..... and that was on the PC no less!

too many big websites make use of Flash, heck, even El'Reg used it with they Microsoft Cloud advert!

1
0
Unhappy

Re: No Jelly Beans on my Ice Cream Sandwich

I upgraded my phone to Jelly Bean yesterday and experienced the little blue box syndrome you describe this morning when mooching around the web, I felt so iOlated. People may say that flash runs like crap on a mobile device, but then people also say our rail network runs like crap. I'd still rather have trains than no trains.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: No Jelly Beans on my Ice Cream Sandwich

Hmmmm, and when adobe deserts flash, I'll bet google will make a nice 'replacement' as a small upgrade to jelly bean... :)

0
0
Mushroom

Die, flash, die

It is time for Flash to die a quick and painfull death. This unholy mess has been torturing us long enough now. First no 64 bit Flash on Linux, now there is, but it's crap. Recently installed a new Linux box, tried some Youtube to find every clip looks like Avatar: blue people. Installed different version of Flash: no more blue people, but crashes at will.

12
0

Re: Die, flash, die

If it's Ubuntu or similar, install Flash-Aid within Firefox. It roots out the best Flash version for your machine and sets it up automatically with various custom config options. Always works well for me.

1
0
Linux

Re: Die, flash, die

Ah the blue video experience.

The Assholes at Adobe cocked up the colour frame information ordering for Nvidia VDPAU in 11.2 - you must have an Nvidia card to see this and hardware acceleration on.

This is fixed in Google Chrome using 11.3 and pepper (PAPPI) but not for the Firefox folks (NPAPI) as you are stuck on 11.2 forever. There is an ugly hack to fix the blue experience but I can't be arsed applying it.

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1118576

PS agree die flash, die.

4
0
Devil

Re: Die, flash, die

Yes, indeed, it was Flash-Aid that replaced the "blue" Flash with the crashing one,

Like an old professor at my faculty used to say: "that's exorcising the devil with Beelzebub."

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Die, flash, die

Right click on the video; untick the "Use hardware acceleration" box.

This cured the smurfage for me.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Die, flash, die

Or maybe it's time for Linux crap to finally die, just an idea. The unholy mess and all that....

4
8
Silver badge

Re: Die, flash, die

Odd. I have perfect flash 64 bit mn my linux.

Or as perfect as flash ever gets...

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Die, flash, die

Why do you think MS STILL supports *ancient* embedded video (quicktime and others) for media player??

yes, there are still websites that use it...

Same thing with flash, people STILL want their old websites to work... and if they cannot get their fondleslab to display it, they will find another one that does!!!

flash will remain, until a format that is EASY & CHEAP to use appears..

and as google is AFAIK the one behind HTML5, its just waiting for adobe to stop doing flash...

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Die, flash, die

oh yeah, dont blame Adobe for how bad and crashy flash is...

once the new 'google media player format' has taken over 70% of flash use....

- those SAME 'flash hackers' will take it, and make it as BAD as adobe flash was!!!!!!!! :)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Die, flash, die

@illiad

Slight problem with your logic there, Apple are making billions selling devices without flash.

0
0

Good!

Flash sucks arse bigtime, or possibly Flash is great but the devs misuse it. Whichever. I hate visiting websites and watching it it then painfully grind to a halt.

4
0

The thing that worries me most about the release of Jelly Bean isn't the lack of Flash.

It's the fact that Google et al are going to be starting work on the next version of the OS now, and I can't think of a dessert/sweet that starts with a K.

1
0

Krispy Kreme...

...or maybe not

0
0
Meh

I beleive it may be called Key Lime Pie.

Or, as I like to call anything to do with Android, "cancer".

3
21

re: dessert/sweet that starts with a K.

knickerbocker glory

4
0
Go

Kulfi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulfi

2
0
Thumb Up

Re: Kulfi

I knew you guys wouldn't let me down.

0
0

"Or, as I like to call anything to do with Android, cancer."

Ballmer, is that you? Step away from the chair. It won't make Windows Phone popular.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Phoenix50, is at least correct about the next Android name... despite being flucking idiotic with the second comment.

1
0
FAIL

Ah yes

The return of the resident foaming at the mouth Apple fanatic. Still posting as an AC, as usual. I prefer to refer to Apple's garbage as "anus lupus expulsis" myself.

2
2
Coat

Not surprising

Considering Adobe had annouced they were discontinuing development of the Mobile Adobe Flash this isn't exactly a news flash.

Ok I'm going..but before I do I just want to add the only thing I find surprising is IE10 will have embedded Adobe Flash. Does anyone know if Windows 8 phones or tablets have adobe flash?

2
0

Re: Not surprising

"Does anyone know if Windows 8 phones or tablets have adobe flash?"

I thought Metro was written in Flash..?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Not surprising

"I thought Metro was written in Flash..?"

Not sure if you're serious, but no, it isn't. Metro the interface is presumably written in C and C++, all precompiled anyway. Applications for it can be written in HTML5 + Javascript, C#, C++ or (who does this?) VB. Definitely not FLASH.

FLASH does run in IE10 for those that want it. And there are a lot of sites out there that still use it.

1
0
TJ1
Thumb Up

That's the BBC Android iPlayer fixed then!

I wonder if Adobe have given advance notice to the likes of the BBC because this announcement doesn't have much lead-time before the Flash libraries are withdrawn from the Play store for new devices.

For the BBC iPlayer it could be a great thing - it was hobbled by not being able to play in the background or usable for radio streaming since when the screen goes off so does anything Flash-based.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: That's the BBC Android iPlayer fixed then!

I wish they would just abandon Flash altogether for all devices - the Flash-based parts of its web services don't work reliably even on the desktop.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: That's the BBC Android iPlayer fixed then!

The Flash based Android iPlayer app is a veritable steaming pile of poo. Not only can it not play radio streams in the background, it can't even play them with the screen off. Absolutely shocking example of how not to write a mobile media player app.

I now use get_iplayer to grab programmes and download them to my Android phone to watch where and when I want. And I can keep them as long as I like.

The really stupid thing is that the BBC (or rather the "rights holders" to the various programmes) forced the excellent MyPlayer and BeebPlayer off the Android Market in order to protect their content. This would be fine if they replaced them with something that was actually usable. Instead they replaced it with this bloated Flash-based catastrophe which got me looking for something better (which I found in get_iplayer).

In other words, the fact that I now grab BBC programmes and keep them is purely down to their misguided attempts to protect their content.

3
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums