Adobe abandoning mobile-flash

Adobe abandons mobile Flash development, report says - CNN.com

In an abrupt about-face in its mobile software strategy, Adobe will soon cease developing its Flash Player plug-in for mobile browsers, according to an e-mail sent to Adobe partners on Tuesday evening.

And with that e-mail flash, Adobe has signaled that it knows, as Steve Jobs predicted, the end of the Flash era on the web is coming soon.

Click to expand...

I guess if you can't fix it get rid of it.

Wow. This could be historic (in an geeky internet kind of way)! But what does this mean about the progress that HTML 5 has made in the market place? It doesn't seem to have the steam necessary to displace Flash quite yet. Plus, didn't a new hardware accelerated version of Flash just get released or was about to?

Doug

Doug b said:

But what does this mean about the progress that HTML 5 has made in the market place? It doesn't seem to have the steam necessary to displace Flash quite yet.

Click to expand...

See, this is where I think Adobe is confused. They seem to be putting work into supporting HTML5 technologies (see Adobe Edge for example) but yet, Flash can do much more than HTML/JS/CSS can do now (see here for instance). Some of the issues have been fixed but ones noticeable to the user (like the inability to have true fullscreen in HTML5) are still problems. Flash is also browser agnostic which means a lot when you consider that each browser implements different parts of the HTML5 spec.

It's important to note that Adobe is not abandoning Flash on mobile devices as the article would suggest. Adobe is pushing developers to create AIR apps with Flash (AIR apps can be made with Flash, Flex (which compiles to Flash) or HTML/JS/CSS in case you didn't know). It would seem then that they are shifting their hopes for Flash, not abandoning them.

If it looks like I'm supporting Flash, don't read it that way.

It's about time...I've always hated flash. It just that it seems like EVERYTHING runs on it though...

MacDude121 said:

It's about time...I've always hated flash. It just that it seems like EVERYTHING runs on it though...

Click to expand...

vansmith said:

Flash is also browser agnostic which means a lot when you consider that each browser implements different parts of the HTML5 spec.

Click to expand...

That would be why. This is also part of the reason that Adobe is ceasing development for mobile devices - they can't manage the fragmentation. On the desktop, they support three operating systems that cover > 99% of all machines. In the mobile space, there are too many different operating systems (not to mention the meager system specs) - iOS, Android, BB OS, WP7, Symbian, etc.

If it means we can get a more consistent behaving online video supporter, I'm all for it. I've had some issues with HTML5, mainly on youtube, but I'm sure things will get ironed out when it truly goes mainstream.

iggibar said:

If it means we can get a more consistent behaving online video supporter, I'm all for it. I've had some issues with HTML5, mainly on youtube, but I'm sure things will get ironed out when it truly goes mainstream.

Click to expand...

HTML5 video isn't going to solve the problem - it's only going to change it. Instead of a lack of Flash support, you have to worry about video format support unless of course the web designer is smart enough to put up multiple formats and source tags (but I think time has proven that intelligence escapes some web designers).

This table demonstrates perfectly the problem. Looking at the table, it would seem as if WebM has the best shot at universal support (seeing as how it is supported by every browser). WHo know though.

Ceasing development doesnt mean flash will cease to exist.

Personally, html 5 worked perfectly for me.

vansmith said:

HTML5 video isn't going to solve the problem - it's only going to change it. Instead of a lack of Flash support, you have to worry about video format support unless of course the web designer is smart enough to put up multiple formats and source tags (but I think time has proven that intelligence escapes some web designers).

This table demonstrates perfectly the problem. Looking at the table, it would seem as if WebM has the best shot at universal support (seeing as how it is supported by every browser). WHo know though.

Click to expand...

I also should have mentioned WebM, but I was focusing on HTML5 since that's what most hardware support, and can actually run on your computer. More than 2/3 of the videos online already support H.264. Software supports WebM, but what's the point of that when your hardware can't? If H.264 is in the lead against WebM in terms of current use, and people(mainly companies like Adobe) still say they will switch to becomes more mainstream, you can imagine how much longer it would take for WebM to get a proper foothold. Html5 still has a few years to go, and unless someone crams WebM down our throats(...Google...), it shouldn't be expected any time soon.

I also speak about use in Safari only, since that's what I mainly use, even though I have Firefox and Chrome.

Here's one interesting article I saved. It's a little old, but not much has really changed at all from then:
WebM vs. H.264: A First Look

My interpretation of Adobe's move is that they're going to stop making future mobile versions because flash on a mobile platform doesn't seem likely to be as ubiquitous as it is on the desktop (probably in part because of one particular handset manufacturer's refusal to allow Flash ). Flash runs absolutely fine on my phone, it's especially handy for streaming video websites that only use flash.

Also, HTML5 isn't going the saviour that many think it will be. Even if the specs are fantastic, you still have to rely on the browser makers to implement it properly, which they've proven for many years that they can't do (they're never on the same page). You're probably also going to end up with "extra" support from some browsers that aren't even in the specs that other browsers won't use.

Scott64 said:

Also, HTML5 isn't going the saviour that many think it will be. Even if the specs are fantastic, you still have to rely on the browser makers to implement it properly, which they've proven for many years that they can't do (they're never on the same page).

Click to expand...

That's due to their incompetency. Look at Apple- they worked it because they wanted to make it work, and it's one of, if not the most efficient codec on Safari because they put a wee bit of effort into it. Other web browser companies don't really care about moving forward as long as they can support the current codec trend.

iggibar said:

That's due to their incompetency. Look at Apple- they worked it because they wanted to make it work, and it's one of, if not the most efficient codec on Safari because they put a wee bit of effort into it. Other web browser companies don't really care about moving forward as long as they can support the current codec trend.

Click to expand...

I assume you're talking specifically about audio/video when you mention codecs? I was talking about the actual mark-up, how it looks (rendered in the browser), and how it implements CSS/JavaScript. As far as codecs, I see that, unfortunately resting on the shoulders of the web developers who will likely have to detect the browser and reference the files which use appropriate codecs. Unless the W3C can man-up and tell them "Shut up guys! We're using XXXXXX"

Hi, first off, I'm new here. I posted an quick intro up in the intro thread.

I wish W3C would do so. Though, sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. I've developed in flash since V3, but I also do a lot of css/php/wordpress jquery etc work. Flash has some very distinct advantages, still does, though some of of the advantages have begun to melt away on the bottom. Flash has supported the H.264 codec from an early point, in fact that's why most of youtube is already html5 ready, they just swapped out the player, not the actual video codec.

as far as the mobile plugin, well, it just didn't make sense, at least on such a small screen. I'm not sure what the thinking is when it comes to say, ipad/tablets though. Personally I've never seen the benefit of the flash plugin on a phone. Perhaps adobe has seen this, finally. I think though that the bad feelings between adobe and jobs was evident in that adobe basically reached a point where they did prove it was possible, but waited until Jobs was gone before announcing it's done. Low I know.

iggibar said:

I also should have mentioned WebM, but I was focusing on HTML5 since that's what most hardware support, and can actually run on your computer. More than 2/3 of the videos online already support H.264.

Click to expand...

WebM gets used with HTML5 video tags - it's not a separate thing (or did I read you wrong here?).

WebM is gaining traction and is doing so with the help of one service alone: YouTube. Google's video delivery system has huge influence in the online video market (the most recent stats I could find is this which says that YouTube has a 40% market share which seems low). Given that all new videos are transcoded into WebM when uploaded (source), I'd argue that there is a reasonable amount of WebM content.

iggibar said:

Here's one interesting article I saved. It's a little old, but not much has really changed at all from then:
WebM vs. H.264: A First Look

Click to expand...

I won't argue the merits of WebM or H.264 because I know very little about video. I do want to point out a few things from that article though:

Though H.264 offers slightly higher quality than the VP8 codec used by WebM using the aggressive (e.g., very low data rate) parameters that I tested, at normal web parameters, you couldn't tell the difference without a score card. Even compared to H.264 files produced with x264, VP8 holds its own.

Click to expand...

Where GPU acceleration exists for H.264, it's significantly more efficient than WebM; where it doesn't, the two formats run neck and neck.

Click to expand...

That article was written only three months after WebM hit the market so H.264 had a bit of a head start. That's not to say that the GPU issue is resolved but rather to point out that this issue may be resolved (again, I know so very little about video).

In my experience, WebM does what it was designed to do well: create small videos designed for the web. I just did an experiment to highlight this.


That right there is why WebM was designed. That said, WebM, as I understand it, is not supposed to be this fantastic high quality codec but rather one meant for the web (in other words, small and fast).

Honestly, the biggest issue isn't going to be quality. The biggest problem, aside from differing codec support, is going to be patents (which drives differing support as it is now to a certain extent). What I find frustrating in all of this is that many of the browser makers want an open and standardized web yet seem resolute in their decisions to support different aspects. Ugh.

Scott64 said:

Also, HTML5 isn't going the saviour that many think it will be. Even if the specs are fantastic, you still have to rely on the browser makers to implement it properly, which they've proven for many years that they can't do (they're never on the same page). You're probably also going to end up with "extra" support from some browsers that aren't even in the specs that other browsers won't use.

Click to expand...

So very very true (unfortunately).

iggibar said:

That's due to their incompetency. Look at Apple- they worked it because they wanted to make it work, and it's one of, if not the most efficient codec on Safari because they put a wee bit of effort into it. Other web browser companies don't really care about moving forward as long as they can support the current codec trend.

Click to expand...

I'd say Google has put a lot of effort into WebM. What makes Apple/Safari any more special than any other browser in this respect? Do you have evidence to support a claim that Apple has put more effort into its codec support than other browser makers?

vansmith said:

I'd say Google has put a lot of effort into WebM. What makes Apple/Safari any more special than any other browser in this respect? Do you have evidence to support a claim that Apple has put more effort into its codec support than other browser makers?

Click to expand...

Evidence? In general, it's not hard to see that Safari has better integration with H.264 than most other browsers. I also didn't single out Chrome, but that's focusing more with WebM than just solely with HTML5 as in Safari. That's kind of where I was trying to get to.

iggibar said:

Evidence? In general, it's not hard to see that Safari has better integration with H.264 than most other browsers. I also didn't single out Chrome, but that's focusing more with WebM than just solely with HTML5 as in Safari. That's kind of where I was trying to get to.

Click to expand...

Being the only browser on the Mac that supports H.264 (once Google finally drops support) through the HTML5 video tag does give it an advantage in that respect.

Again, I don't understand your second part. WebM is used through HTML5 video tags so Google is supporting WebM as part of the development of the HTML5 spec just as Apple is supporting H.264. Am I missing something here?

vansmith said:

Again, I don't understand your second part. WebM is used through HTML5 video tags so Google is supporting WebM as part of the development of the HTML5 spec just as Apple is supporting H.264. Am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

Maybe I've been completely misunderstand this, but from my understanding, WebM is only natively supported on open browsers, and requires most other browsers to have its own plugin. Also, ust because you can support HTML5 codecs, doesn't mean you will be able to support WebM. WebM also works at a different video compression VP8/V video/audio files, different from most html5 compliant browsers.

Also, I remember reading a few note some time ago about Google working on Youtube with their "open source" HTML5 codec, which by the way are considered open source because it is free until video owner want to charge the viewer a fee for it. Anyways, there's a rumor that they want to do that to youtube in the future...

Webm, to me, is an answer to the question nobody asked.

I'm sure there are things that I'm have twisted in my mind, because truthfully, some of these things are hard to understand how they work together even if you're computer literate...so, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm going to address this point by point simply because it's easier (not because I'm deconstructing anything).

iggibar said:

Maybe I've been completely misunderstand this, but from my understanding, WebM is only natively supported on open browsers, and requires most other browsers to have its own plugin.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean open source in which case you're incorrect since Opera supports WebM natively. I also believe that MS made an H.264 plugin for Windows browsers that didn't support it.

iggibar said:

Also, ust because you can support HTML5 codecs, doesn't mean you will be able to support WebM. WebM also works at a different video compression VP8/V video/audio files, different from most html5 compliant browsers.

Click to expand...

Just as supporting HTML5 video doesn't mean you'll be able to support H.264. And again, I'm confused as to what you're getting at in your last sentence. The format is irrelevant - certain techniques for compression have absolutely no bearing on how it is supported in the browser. WebM is not "different from most html5 compliant browsers" as it's just a video format like H.264. The HTML5 spec doesn't call for H.264 as the standard. In fact, there is no standard format.

iggibar said:

Also, I remember reading a few note some time ago about Google working on Youtube with their "open source" HTML5 codec, which by the way are considered open source because it is free until video owner want to charge the viewer a fee for it. Anyways, there's a rumor that they want to do that to youtube in the future...

Click to expand...

Charging a fee for watching WebM content doesn't make it any less open source. This argument is like saying that Linux and Apache aren't open source if a webmaster hosts a website that you have to pay for that is hosted on a LAMP setup (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP). Let's also remember that there is open source software that is sold since nothing in the majority of open source licences precludes it from being sold.

iggibar said:

Webm, to me, is an answer to the question nobody asked.

Click to expand...

Seeing as how the W3C will only certified non patent encumbered formats as a standard, it answers the question of "which format" in a field where (a patented) H.264 was the only solution (there is always OGV but that never really caught on). Now, it probably won't become the standard (I read earlier that the W3C gave up on trying to define one) but it's an option. It also answers the size question (as noted above) and because it is open source and patent free, it can be easily baked into a web browser without patent or royalty concerns. So, it answers a few questions.

iggibar said:

I'm sure there are things that I'm have twisted in my mind, because truthfully, some of these things are hard to understand how they work together even if you're computer literate...so, correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Ask away - I'd love to help clarify things as best I can. I don't purport to be an expert but I do have a fairly well developed understanding of this whole situation.

Is anyone else starting to get a little sleepy? Zzzzzzzzzz.....