[iDaver]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

You're right man. Fight the power. It is better to have nothing at all than have a device that can do most things really well.

Better to have a nice laptop which displays the entirety of every web page. Perhaps "most" people will get used to all the blank panels that show up on web pages on their iPads. I don't think I could. Just saying.

[Spheric Harlot]

They won't need to.

"Most" websites are being/will be redone to avoid showing the Blue Lego of Fail.

At first, this may simply mean omitting content, but I find that stuff I just don't see tends to not bother me.

[turtle777]

The Poll Result clearly speaks for itself:

"Hey, Adobe"



-t

[Big Mac]

Very clever, turtle!

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The Poll Result clearly speaks for itself:

"Hey, Adobe"



-t

Let's suppose Adobe hears the complaints and rewrites and improves Flash for iPhone OS and OS X. Do you think Apple would then use it in the iPad, or maintain the stubborn stance everyone guesses is an attempt to kill Flash once and for all?

I envision a lot of grandmas buying their new iPads and wondering why so many web pages don't work properly. Complaints start flowing and the iPad gets a bad rep for being an inferior web device. And Apple's stance on Flash isn't an acceptable answer to these people.

Don't forget, it's the non-tech crowd who's supposed to buy millions of iPads for web surfing, not just the tech-geeks who might understand (and accept?) why the browser isn't working properly.

[Spheric Harlot]

It's not going to be an issue. Mobile web is the future, and Apple has 90+% of that.

Content providers are adapting en masse.

[Simon]

I find it extremely amusing that the very same people who say computers aren't quite there yet (alluding that mobile iPad-like devices is what almost everything will be developing towards) have no trouble claiming the end of Flash has already arrived.

Just as the iPad won't replace most computers, most embedded Flash content is still well, Flash. But what I see a lot here is people who confuse their hopes for future development with the actual reality 99% of all computer users deal with every day.

The iPad has to sell today. It faces the market today. What might happen in 2015 is pretty irrelevant if you're interested in how well this iPad will sell in 2010. Even more so when nobody can really say today in which format content will be delivered in 2015.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Keeping in mind that Eug didn't want the first iPhone because "Edge Speed" was "unusable" and was waiting for the iPod touch which is hopefully just like the iPhone but more storage. It comes out, he doesn't like it cuz its not 64 gigs, go gets the 16 gig iPhone 3G which now has "usable data speeds" and then don't even even get a data plan for it. Then got one, canceled it after 2 weeks thinking he could live without. Then got it again seeing he couldn't. That's some clear thinking there man .

analogue SPRINKLES is liberally embellishing at best, and making stuff up at worst:

1) I said nothing about not getting the 16 GB 3G. I said 16 GB was sufficient (and better for my needs than 8 GB), but I'd probably upgrade in a few years when 32-64 GB was cheap.

2) It true I thought the EDGE unit was too slow, but the main reason I didn't get the first iPhone was because it wasn't available in Canada. Remember, everyone using an EDGE iPhone in Canada jailbroke a US model. analogue SPRINKLES is arguing the merits of an EDGE iPhone for the masses, yet was running it through hacks that would break every couple of iPhone updates. Plus, data plans in Canada at that time were quite expensive. They didn't become more affordable until Rogers/Fido released the iPhone in Canada, and that's only after we all complained.

3) As for the data plan: I figured I'd probably eventually get it, but I thought I'd try a few weeks without it do see how much I missed it. My friend with an iPod touch functioned fine off WiFi, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Fido (my carrier) was offering the cheap 6GB data plan until the end of August (and then extended it to the end of Sept. I believe), so I didn't have to decide immediately.

Originally Posted by Simon 

I find it extremely amusing that the very same people who say computers aren't quite there yet (alluding that mobile iPad-like devices is what almost everything will be developing towards) have no trouble claiming the end of Flash has already arrived.

Just as the iPad won't replace most computers, most embedded Flash content is still well, Flash. But what I see a lot here is people who confuse their hopes for future development with the actual reality 99% of all computer users deal with every day.

The iPad has to sell today. It faces the market today. What might happen in 2015 is pretty irrelevant if you're interested in how well this iPad will sell in 2010. Even more so when nobody can really say today in which format content will be delivered in 2015.

Exactly. If you're a geek and KNOW you don't need Flash, then the iPad might just be great. But knowing the usage habits of your average user, it's not really appropriate to recommend the iPad to everyone, since they won't necessarily be aware that it doesn't run that e-card website or whatever.

BTW, I'm glad aS brought up the iPhone and why I didn't buy it immediately after it came out in the US. I said to people in Canada after the iPhone came out in the US that they shouldn't get it because of all the issues running it in Canada. (Ironically, in an iPhone, I didn't think lack of Flash was a major issue for most, cuz it's a phone, not a tablet or laptop.) Meanwhile aS was going around telling everyone to buy a US phone and jailbreak it. Not something I would recommend to friends and family. In fact, IIRC, I think one of his friends bricked an iPhone because of the hacks.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Companies are free to offer what they want and not offer what they don't want...until they dominate a market. You're scrutinized in a different way once you're the MS of operating systems or the Apple of smartphones.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The iPhone is nowhere near the level of market penetration that Windows has.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

In the smartphone market they sure are.

At 16.6% ?? Not even close.
IPhone Loses Market Share in Fourth Quarter - Digits - WSJ

[Spheric Harlot]

They account for over 90% of all mobile web browsing, though. ^

[turtle777]

For all those who worried that h.264 will not stay royalty free:

MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as Internet Broadcast AVC Video) during the next License term from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015

MPEG LA - The Standard for Standards - Media

I'm sure some of the Ogg advocates are going to point out that this might change in 2016 once h.264 becomes the de facto standard.

I don't care. If that happens, other alternatives will spring up, maybe then the time for Ogg has come.
Meanwhile, h.264 will rule supremes, together with HTML5.

Flash will die as a means of providing streaming videos and a lot of interactive sites.

-t

[Eug]

Yup. H.264 is not royalty free. Content creation software that utilizes the H.264 codec must pay royalties, and commercial sites that make money off H.264 must also pay royalties. As you posted, all this ruling is stating is if you're a non-commercial website, you don't have to pay MPEG LA to display H.264 video... well, at least until 2015. That in itself is totally absurd IMO.

Personally I think all the conflict between the various browsers around this and ogg, etc, will only serve to slow the adoption of HTML5. Apple will continue to refuse to support ogg, and Mozilla will continue to refuse to support H.264. Meanwhile Flash will continue to be used while this all sorts itself out, since Flash is already entrenched.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Personally I think all the conflict between the various browsers around this and ogg, etc, will only serve to slow the adoption of HTML5. Apple will continue to refuse to support ogg, and Mozilla will continue to refuse to support H.264. Meanwhile Flash will continue to be used while this all sorts itself out, since Flash is already entrenched.

Staying with Flash is still no solution, since it involves the whole Mozilla / Ogg complex.

h.264 is a viable route to go for the near future. Since h.264 remains free for non-profit use, maybe Mozilla reconsiders.
I don't mind that content providers that charge money for streaming have to pay a royalty.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Staying with Flash is still no solution.

Again, I think you're missing my point. I don't think it's the ultimate solution, but its existence will remain a fact of life for the near future.

How long that future is remains to be seen. If there were a clear upgrade path, then the future lifespan of Flash would likely be relatively short.

However, there are several factors working against a quick death of Flash.

1) HTML5 is not yet even standardized. It won't be for quite some time actually.
2) Flash is already ubiquitous, and there is always quite a bit of inertia out there from coders, content providers, and end users. End users use what coders and content providers provide. Coders and content providers provide for what end users have. Adobe's Flash currently has 98% penetration to end users.
3) Mozilla so far refuses to support H.264, and Microsoft also refuses to support H.264. Microsoft currently holds 2/3rds of internet browser market share. Mozilla is number 2.

h.264 is a viable route to go for the near future.
I don't mind that content providers that charge money for streaming have to pay a royalty.

That doesn't bother me. However, I think those content providers that don't charge money for streaming should never have to pay a royalty. However, the MPEG LA refuses to guarantee this beyond 2015. In fact, they had to get their collective arms twisted to get it guaranteed for just 5 years.

I could see the MPEG LA resorting to lame RIAA-like tactics in 2016 to get money from bloggers with H.264 videos, etc.

While I'm not necessarily a fan of OGG per se, I do understand Mozilla's concern and intent here. OGG is free, and will always be free. The companies behind Flash, H.264, and Silverlight are scared to death of this.

---

I think some here think I'm a big supporter of Flash. If you do, then you are mistaken. I'm just a realist. Flash is entrenched in everything these days. I would be perfectly happy if Flash died a quick death (eg. standardized out of existence) and everyone went to H.264 video delivery overnight, and all the main browsers supported it immediately. However, an objective assessment of the situation is that that just ain't gonna happen in the next year or so. It may happen eventually, but in the meantime the n00bs are still going to want to watch their Hulu videos and send their annoying e-cards, etc... and that's gonna be Flash.

[Spheric Harlot]

Hulu has announced that they're developing mobile versions for different platforms.

[The Final Dakar]

There is, however, an ever-growing (if ot exploding)mobile market which Apple is dominating. Sites might want to cater to that.

Really, this is beginning to mirror our dependance on oil. If you want to get of flash, you're going to have accept the pain. If you don't want to endure the pain, you're just prolonging how long flash will be around.

Yeah, Apple isn't trying to kill flash's dominance out of benevolence, but anything aside from this "drastic" measure would be far less effective.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

There is, however, an ever-growing (if ot exploding)mobile market which Apple is dominating. Sites might want to cater to that.

Really, this is beginning to mirror our dependance on oil. If you want to get of flash, you're going to have accept the pain. If you don't want to endure the pain, you're just prolonging how long flash will be around.

Yeah, Apple isn't trying to kill flash's dominance out of benevolence, but anything aside from this "drastic" measure would be far less effective.

I agree we should fully get off oil. However, last I checked, that ain't happening quickly.

Not exactly a car analogy, so perhaps the analogy didn't completely suck. My point is that Apple is willing to go it alone, and might make significant inroads for the phone market, but even the iPad is quite different IMO. Many n00bs would be rather perturbed to find certain content unavailable on their iPads, even if they were willing to tolerate it on their iPhones.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I agree we should fully get off oil. However, last I checked, that ain't happening quickly.

No one's doing anything drastic, either.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Again, I think you're missing my point. I don't think it's the ultimate solution, but its existence will remain a fact of life for the near future.

<snip>

I think some here think I'm a big supporter of Flash. If you do, then you are mistaken. I'm just a realist. Flash is entrenched in everything these days. I would be perfectly happy if Flash died a quick death (eg. standardized out of existence) and everyone went to H.264 video delivery overnight, and all the main browsers supported it immediately. However, an objective assessment of the situation is that that just ain't gonna happen in the next year or so. It may happen eventually, but in the meantime the n00bs are still going to want to watch their Hulu videos and send their annoying e-cards, etc... and that's gonna be Flash.

Good post. I'm glad somebody here gets it. Saying "Flash must die" isn't going to make it happen. Even if it's Apple that says it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

Saying "Flash must die" isn't going to make it happen. Even if it's Apple that says it.

That's a technically correct, albeit, useless statement.

Saying "Flash will live" (as in Eug's "realism" view) is even less likely going to make it happen.

-t

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's a technically correct, albeit, useless statement.

Gee, I think your posts are pretty useless too.

[turtle777]

^^^ Awesome post.

-t

[Simon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Saying "Flash will live" (as in Eug's "realism" view) is even less likely going to make it happen.

That' exactly the point! Eug isn't trying to make anything happen. He's trying to explain to you and a few others here what's actually going on in the real world. And what reality looks like today for 99% of the users out there.

But instead of listening and trying to understand that, some prefer to mock him and/or preach about how the world should be and how we need to start seeing the light. Sounds great in theory, but it just doesn't work that way. Kinda like communism.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Simon 

That' exactly the point! Eug isn't trying to make anything happen. He's trying to explain to you and a few others here what's actually going on in the real world. And what reality looks like today for 99% of the users out there.

But instead of listening and trying to understand that, some prefer to mock him and/or preach about how the world should be and how we need to start seeing the light. Sounds great in theory, but it just doesn't work that way. Kinda like communism.

Communism, eh? Well then, Flash is the oppressive regime and Apple is trying to lead the revolution, rather than waiting around for years hoping someone else will come in and save us.

THE DRAMA!

[turtle777]

We got that, by now.

Eug is saying what will happen -> my only question is "how does he know ?" "Is he psychic ?"

The rest is saying what should happen -> merely giving an opinion.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Basically, some of you accept Flash as a necessary evil, and some us don't. That doesn't mean we aren't in touch with reality. It means we want to change it.
(Insert some dick replying "Good luck with that" here)

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I am 100% sure even if Adobe re-writes it to work 10x better by the time it is done most people will have moved on and Apple still will not ok it.

Youtube already made the switch which is everyones main concern, nobody will care about banners. All we got left is the odd flash video and all flash movie websites (grandmas fav).

[Spheric Harlot]

Wonder of wonders:

Adobe has announced that Flash 10.1 will support Core Animation, which will cut CPU usage IN HALF just like that.

Amazing how a little hard love can work wonders, eh? (Which is to say, I'll believe it when I see it.)

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Wonder of wonders:

Adobe has announced that Flash 10.1 will support Core Animation, which will cut CPU usage IN HALF just like that.

Amazing how a little hard love can work wonders, eh? (Which is to say, I'll believe it when I see it.)

Isn't this months old and most of us are already using the beta? seems to make very little difference to me. I can still tell when there is a flash page running in safari by listening to the fans ramp up.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Basically, some of you accept Flash as a necessary evil, and some us don't. That doesn't mean we aren't in touch with reality. It means we want to change it.

That's not what I saw in this thread. This thread was more like:

A: It sucks the iPad can't play Flash.
B: No, it doesn't. Flash sucks.
A: Well yeah, sure it does but still you need it.
B: No you don't.
A: Umm, why not?
B: Because it's going to be replaced by HTML5 in 2015. YouTube went HTML5 yesterday. Vimeo did too. Hulu will follow tomorrow. Come 2015 you won't even know what Flash was.
A: Umm yeah, maybe, but today it's here and I need it.
B: No you don't.
A: Yes I do.
B: No, because it sucks and by 2015 HTML5 will replace it. YouTube went HTML5 yesterday. Vimeo did too. Hulu will follow tomorrow. Come 2015 you won't even know what Flash was.
A: I understand. But even if you're right, I need it until then.
B: No you don't.
A: Well then how am I supposed to play Flash content?
B: You don't need Flash content. Flash sucks. Steve said so too. You don't need Flash content. <repeat five time> <mention again that YouTube went HTML5 yesterday>
A: Umm, yes I do. Take for instance this website...
B: ... la la la ... I can't hear you ... la, la, la ...
A:

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Simon 

That's not what I saw in this thread. This thread was more like:

A: It sucks the iPad can't play Flash.
B: No, it doesn't. Flash sucks.
A: Well yeah it does, but you need it.
B: No you don't.
A: Umm, why not?
B: Because it's going to be replaced by HTML5 in 2015.
A: Umm yeah, maybe, but today it's here and I need it.
B: No you don't.
A: Yes I do.
B: No, because it sucks and by 2015 HTML5 will replace it.
A: I understand. But even if you're right, I need it until then.
B: No you don't.
A: Well then how am I supposed to play Flash content?
B: You don't need Flash content. Flash sucks. Steve said so too. You don't need Flash content. <repeat five time>
A: Umm, yes I do. Take for instance this website...
B: ... la la la ... I can't hear you ... la, la, la ...
A:

Here's what I read:

A: The iPad needs flash.
B. No it doesn't. The iPhone does fine without it.
A: A multi-media pad without Flash is pointless.
B: It's not pointless, there's HTML 5.
A: No one else will do that til 2015.
B: YouTube already does it. Others will change.
A: Nobody is going to change their site for a fraction of the market.
B: Apple has 97% of the mobile browsing market.
A: ... la la la ... I can't hear you ... la, la, la ...

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's what I read:

A: The iPad needs flash.
B. No it doesn't. The iPhone does fine without it.

iPhone is NOT a very good web browsing experience, like the iPad is intended to be. iPad has a 10" screen and it's likely to be marketed much differently than an iPhone or touch. When Steve Jobs started demonstrating the iPad, he went straight to the web. "The whole website in the palm of your hands" is what he said, and the first two pages he looked at had big blank spaces with missing Flash content.

iPhone and touch are phones and iPods which happen to be able to access the web in a pinch. I used my touch for about a month trying to get used to browsing (mostly mobile) sites until I finally said forget it, it's not a good way to surf. Now it sits permanently docked to my alarm clock.

So saying "the iPhone does fine without Flash" doesn't mean much to me. Sorry.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

iPhone is NOT a very good web browsing experience, like the iPad is intended to be. iPad has a 10" screen and it's likely to be marketed much differently than an iPhone or touch. When Steve Jobs started demonstrating the iPad, he went straight to the web. "The whole website in the palm of your hands" is what he said, and the first two pages he looked at had big blank spaces with missing Flash content.

iPhone and touch are phones and iPods which happen to be able to access the web in a pinch. I used my touch for about a month trying to get used to browsing (mostly mobile) sites until I finally said forget it, it's not a good way to surf. Now it sits permanently docked to my alarm clock.

So saying "the iPhone does fine without Flash" doesn't mean much to me. Sorry.

The iPhone is good for surfing the web, the iPad will be great.

Forget "surfing" the web. Get one of the many RSS readers and it is an awesome experience.

[Eug]

The iPhone is not good for surfing the web.

The iPhone is just way, way better than other smartphones. IOW, the iPhone is the first one that doesn't royally suck.

That said, the iPad should be much, much better than the iPhone for surfing the web, for obvious reasons.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

iPhone is NOT a very good web browsing experience, like the iPad is intended to be. iPad has a 10" screen and it's likely to be marketed much differently than an iPhone or touch. When Steve Jobs started demonstrating the iPad, he went straight to the web. "The whole website in the palm of your hands" is what he said, and the first two pages he looked at had big blank spaces with missing Flash content.

iPhone and touch are phones and iPods which happen to be able to access the web in a pinch. I used my touch for about a month trying to get used to browsing (mostly mobile) sites until I finally said forget it, it's not a good way to surf. Now it sits permanently docked to my alarm clock.

So saying "the iPhone does fine without Flash" doesn't mean much to me. Sorry.

It's ok, nothing you've said means much to me, either.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not exactly a car analogy, so perhaps the analogy didn't completely suck. My point is that Apple is willing to go it alone, and might make significant inroads for the phone market, but even the iPad is quite different IMO. Many n00bs would be rather perturbed to find certain content unavailable on their iPads, even if they were willing to tolerate it on their iPhones.

You added this after I already quoted you.

The point is, Flash won't die unless someone tries to do something. And more devices blocking Flash (in essence) is a step in that direction.

Yeah, there's going to be people that don't like it. There's going to be people that find it pointless or unusable. That's fine. Don't buy the iPad then.

[Eug]

Well, there is a difference between end users and pioneers. Apple is a pioneer, and n00bs are end users.

It takes a pioneer to get things changed, and the more clout a pioneer has, the faster things get changed. Still, lowly end users don't always want to ride with the pioneers, and if given options may prefer to choose another product.

Back in the early iPhone days, the people liked being with the pioneer as Apple, because all the competition sucked anyway. The pioneering product was way better to begin with.

OTOH, back in the early OS X 10.1 days, people tended to stay away from Macs much more, because the OS was rough around the edges and more importantly, the compatibilty with what people were used to was seriously lacking.

With the iPad I think we're somewhere in between. IMO it's not a no-brainer like the iPhone was. Still, it's an interesting product that will generate sales.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The iPhone is not good for surfing the web.

The iPhone is just way, way better than other smartphones. IOW, the iPhone is the first one that doesn't royally suck.

You're 100% right. I dropped "good" unwarranted.

What would your scale of acceptability classify it as? "The best of the worst" "Barley usable".

God forbid it would actually be called good or give them credit. I guess for that grand title it would need 100% flash support and the iPhone screen would need to be 10" but still fit in your pocket.

You ever see the smash hit Showgirls. Miss high standards Elisabeth Berkleys character would never say something was good only that "It doesn't suck". Guess that what happens when you are at the top of the stripper chain.

Oh and BTW Eug. If you add up the time you spent at work complaining about the iPad on a forum you could have already afforded 10 of them and sold them to us folks who actually want one even though it won't be a "good" web surfing device and barley usable by even grandmas standards.

[::maroma::]

This whole argument sounds so much like the original iPhone announcement aftermath. History does indeed repeat itself. Only on the Internets it repeats about once every 3-4 years.

I will enjoy coming back to this thread in a couple years. Just as much as I like to go back to the iPhone threads from the original announcement. Good for laughs.

[The Final Dakar]

Here we are, the first iPhone thread on NN after it was announced. Don't know if Flash was mentioned.

[::maroma::]

Specifics aside, the general gist is very similar. "Apple made stupid decisions that will surely spell the death of the product before it even hits the shelves!"

And I do remember many people complaining about no Flash on Mobile Safari. I don't hear any complaints about that anymore, that is until the whole argument was reignited with the iPad. I just haven't seen the first hand evidence of people rejecting the entire product because Flash isn't supported. It just flat out hasn't happened. I don't see why it will with this.

Personally I think progress requires sacrifice. And if I'm being asked to sacrifice Flash in order to progress past bloated, buggy, resource hogging technologies, I'm happy to make that sacrifice.

[The Final Dakar]

The bawling about CIngular is hilarious (though justified).

[::maroma::]

Indeed. I got no love for ATT. Although I think I've had fairly good luck with them as far as coverage and dropped calls. Just wish their data network was more robust.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

This is the same old nonsense we always seem to go through with new devices. There is a crowd of people who yell and holler that the device is useless for everyone because:

1) costs too much
2) Is missing some vital hardware feature
3) is missing some vital software feature

Most of these same people never end up buying the product even years later because they just aren't the market for it to begin with but they think every product that comes out needs to be perfect for them.

The MacBook Air isn't for me as a designer but I know lots of road warriors you would never part with it.

The iPhone shouldn't have sold a single device because it had dealbreakers as "Att only, no removable battery, no 3rd party apps, no 3G, no multitasking". Where was the flash argument then? Oh that's right copy/paste was the dealbreaker at the time. I remember nobody bought the first iPhone.

The iPad was never suggested to be a Phone or Video Phone by Apple at any point. Even with that in mind people REALLY want them.

If Apple was saying this device can do everything and replace your phone and fit in your pocket somehow but it was missing the camera and multitasking then you guys would have a point. Apple is not doing that however.

Yes a camera would be nice for some people and it will come sooner or later but it is in no way a "Deal breaker" for the MAJORITY. All you fussy folks can hold out for 2 years to get that camera you need so bad.

In the mean time let those of use who like the iPad for what it is enjoy it.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

And here is exactly why I would trade some flash videos to kill flash ads. I go to cnn.com and without any rollover or actions on my part the whole page slides down and a flash ad video takes over for a few seconds.

Offensive.

[turtle777]

Apple did the right thing, and it's bearing fruit already.

Hulu Could Still Launch On The iPad

Flash is dooomed

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

And here is exactly why I would trade some flash videos to kill flash ads. I go to cnn.com and without any rollover or actions on my part the whole page slides down and a flash ad video takes over for a few seconds.

Offensive.

You just had to share that offensiveness didn't you, by including a huge 900 KB image?!?

So, yeah, that's really annoying, but you don't honestly think that the demise of Flash will mean the demise of irritating ads do you? I betcha the ad world is drooling at the thought of a powerful standard for multimedia display that doesn't require the installation of a 3rd party plug-in.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, yeah, that's really annoying, but you don't honestly think that the demise of Flash will mean the demise of irritating ads do you?

It's sort of like making something fool-proof. Someone will come up with a bigger fool.

[Spheric Harlot]

In related news:

Initially, Firefox for N900 does not support browser plug-ins. Due to performance problems using Adobe Flash within Firefox on many websites, especially those with multiple plug-ins on them, we have disabled plugins for Firefox for Maemo 1.0. We plan to provide a browser add-on that will enable you to selectively enable plugins on certain sites, because some sites, like YouTube, work well.

Firefox for Nokia N900 Release Notes

In other words, other platforms are coming to the exact same conclusion that Apple was smart enough to reach BEFORE they released support.

Apple's maxim: Better to have whining about missing features than to have whining about features that suck.

[tupsy0]

Not to mention a users joy at having flash content would be short lived if the thing dies after an hour or is the size and weight of several house bricks to accomidate the battery that would be needed.