Flash Coming to iOS 5?

Is it finally officially coming?

Flash Coming to iPhone and iPad


Announcing Flash Player 11 and AIR 3

"Today, we’re excited to announce that Adobe Flash Player 11 and AIR 3 will be launching in early October. These milestone releases introduce the next generation of the technologies that deliver stunning content and apps to over a billion people — across screens including Android, iPhone, iPad, BlackBerry PlayBook, Windows, Mac, and connected TV devices — pushing the boundaries of what’s possible on the web"

 

hope not. Its dreadful it should die

 

Lol I hope not as well. Adobe is pathetic...

 

I'm OK with it being off by default but happier with the ability to enable or disable it on demand..as you can in Android..because it still is out there

I've heard the real reason they didn't initially offer that option is because "apps" could bypass Apple's control like HTML 5 apps can..?

 

MacVideo - Encoding - News - Adobe fuels Flash fire with Flash Player 11 launch

Apple's garden wall is cracking | ZDNet

 

It's about time.

Flash is the scourge of the web. I hate it, and pretty much everything else that Adobe produces except PDF. But I also can't live without it. There's too many sites that require it, some of which I can't avoid (e.g. my bank). So the lack of Flash on iOS pretty much forced me to Android.

HTML 5 is going to be just as bad because it aims to provide web developers with all the main features of Flash. So even if HTML 5 kills off Flash as Apple hopes, I don't think it's going to make the web any better.

 

There's not going to be any OS level flash on iOS. There may be a developer path using adobe tools that allows for current adobe developers to do flash development with an iOS target, either via HTML5 or compiled iOS binary with an Xcode script.

Either way, the random flash videos and ads still lingering around the web aren't going to suddenly work on iOS 5.

 

Part of the problem is that because Flash is developed entirely by Adobe (the spec AND the plugin software for devices), that Adobe bears almost all of the responsibility for performance optimization.

With HTML5, the spec is open. Now it's up to Apple to implement performance optimization on iOS devices. Apple prefers this, because they feel Adobe hasn't been doing a great (or even decent) job with that responsibility. It's pretty easy to make the argument that Apple is right. Flash is relatively bulky and slow considering the services that it provides.

With open systems, it's up to whoever to implement performance. Mozilla makes firefox, Google makes chrome, Apple has safari. Each company can work on performance. Notably, since Apple and Google and Mozilla (who together hold a massive percentage of the browser market) all use open source rendering engines, all of these companies can both work together and compete at the same time to improve performance. When Adobe had 100% of the rich content web market, they had little incentive to improve or update their product.

 

It sounded strangely vague..was surprised not to read more about it on Tech Blogs.

So then what currently are the best free & paid web browsers on iOS for Flash content (as I still come across it daily & just ordered an iPad for dad)?

 

I think it's pointless to assign blame because the fights between Apple and Adobe have been going on since at least the mid-90s when Adobe started developing apps for Windows.

Maybe the day will come when HTML 5 rules and Flash is dead. Until then, the web isn't the web without Flash.

Huh? There's no such thing. But if you're interested in Flash video streaming only, there is Skyfire. It works like this:

"The application gets around Apple's ban of Adobe Flash by having Skyfire's servers download Flash video and convert it to HTML5. When a user visits a page with Flash, they see a selectable thumbnail which then allows the content to be streamed directly to the iOS device, negating the need for Flash." link

But there are limitations. First, it's for video only. Flash animations and Flash games won't work. Second, it doesn't work with some video sites, notably Hulu.

And Adobe recently announced that Flash Media Server 4.5 would have a similar capability.

 

Obviously lack of iOS flash is still an issue (some I found-only previously tried SkyFire & CloudBrowse-video is 99% of what I personally care about):

iSWiFTER for iPad on the iTunes App Store

How To Get Flash on iPad 2, iPhone and iPod Touch Without Jailbreak 2011 - YouTube

Puffin Web Browser review: Flash for the iPhone/iPad - YouTube

Skyfire: Flash Videos on iOS! - YouTube

How to get Flash on the iPad, iPhone & iPod Touch! - YouTube

Enough to make me want to jailbreak or get Android..

 

It's not about blaming Adobe. The web should be open and basic expected web functionality (like video and rich content) should not be the responsibility of a single company's plugin, for good reason.

HTML 5 has pretty much already taken over. Although there's still lingering flash content out there on the web (And will be for years), most stuff is accessible now without it, and adobe developers from now on will be making HTML5 content, not flash content.

 

Except that Flash is sluggish even under Android. For comparison, I have a 4G iPod touch running iOS 4.x (the latest version) and a Droid X with Android 2.3.3 (which I believe is also the latest one, it is the most recent version of Android my phone can run without modding anything). They both have similar internal hardware though the resolution of my Droid X is lower than that of my iPod touch. My iPod touch works only with HTML5 and other iOS code while my Droid X can actually run Flash in its browser. I can visit one website which offers both an HTML 5 and traditional HTML/Flash version. The HTML 5 version will not only load faster on my iPod touch but operate smoother. Flash videos pretty much slow my phone down to a snail's pace and I don't have any fancy animated clock/weather widgets, animated backgrounds, and I always kill off nonessential background processes. I have observed similar performance on a Xoom with Android 3.1. Flash wouldn't be so bad if Adobe actually either spent time optimizing the code for each OS or they passed it off to better developers who are familiar with each platform.

It just says something when portable devices drain their batteries and experience performance decreases when accessing Flash yet run smoother when accessing HTML 5. The main problem is that Flash received an early start out the gate and now it is everywhere while Adobe continues to release suboptimal patches and plug-ins. I like the concept of Flash and what it can potentially do but Adobe keeps killing it especially outside of the Windows world where performance takes a hit. That is why I always try to switch to the basic mobile versions of websites with my Droid X. It has a battery that can make it go for about 3 days without needing to be recharged yet, if I access Flash content on anyone of those days, I will have to recharge it later that night. There is something wrong when the battery life of a ~3 day phone is reduced to 4 hours when accessing Flash.

 

I don't like flash. After I got my computer back from the Apple store, with their restore it didn't include programs like flash, but it did include stuff like Firefox.

Because Google Chrome has flash built in, I never bothered to reinstall flash player. If something uses flash, I use chrome. If I am on battery I use Firefox. That way I get more battery life.

 

Just because Flash is imperfect does not mean I shouldn't have the option to enable it. I want access to the whole internet, not Apple's supervised & censored version.

It might not bother my dad much but I personally find the autocratic rule offensively arrogant. I appreciate having the option to enable Flash on demand on my EVO even though it's imperfect and requires more power management on my part.

While my dad appreciates the simple elegance of iOS, I value the versatility of Android. Apple feels like an overbearing intermediary. I understand it's Apple's curator business model but it continues to feel too controlling for me.

I'm just expressing how I feel, please don't take any personal offense. I appreciate the discourse as usual.

 

bah never miss it, I only use it when the site demands it, i.e. the menu or the content is on flash (not videos).

Sincerely web is going to be flashless in a few years, its a matter of time.

For example I can say that you are pretty self absorbed ****, since you want flash, and flash content is completely unavailable for people that need to use screen readers, or some other medical conditions that requires the use of different software.

 

I've already solved the problem with Android, I'm arguing for others..

Asking them to wait "a few years, it's a matter of time" or ad hominem attacks are not persuasive arguments.

 

nah it wasnt meant as an ad hominem attack, sorry it got that way. It was meant more in the lines of what you want, may not be whats best, or in this case far from whats best for everyone in general.

Flash doesnt add anything special, nor practical, nor good to the web. Better coding and better programs can be developed using HTML5 and other tools like javascript, php and some others semi or complete languages.

So what lets see what I meant to say is, flash is going to die, a painful slow death. It will be better for everyone, and try to think about others from time to time.

BTW I use android as well, the terrible thing about it, and actually the only complaint that I have with it, is the abysmal battery life. Im going to get my hands on the atrix to see if there is enough juice in there. If not a iphone might be the choice....

 

There is a browser setting to control plug-ins. If you set it to allow plug-ins on demand, Flash content appears as a little download arrow which you can click on to download and run the Flash. It looks & works just like the Firefox Flashblock add-on. Or you can disable plug-ins entirely.

I also have the mobile view setting disabled. I really cannot stand mobile sites. It's like going back to my old flip phone from 5 years ago. But YMMV.

Mobile devices have a very short lifespan before they become obsolete, so the "Flash will die eventually" argument is a bad reason not to support it now.

For an iPhone it's probably not the biggest deal, because most people will find the small screen to be more of a limiting factor anyway. But for an iPad, I think anything less than full access to web content is just inexcusable.

Your particular handset & usage may have abysmal battery life, but that doesn't say much about Android. My wife has a Samsung and my brother has a Droid and they last 3 days, but I have an HTC Desire and I generally have to charge every night.

My battery life is highly dependent on which radios are on, the signal strength in my area, which applications I keep running, and of course usage. Talking, texting, music, and general web browsing aren't a big drain. But heavy internet usage from my laptop through the wi-fi hotspot feature will drain the battery in 4-6 hours, and using the Navigation app with GPS on will kill it in 4 or less.

 

I can only maintain the battery life of the device if I close all the aps, so it becomes less of a smartphone and more of a dumb phone (or intellectually impaired phone ). Since I usually use public transportation its my primary music source, and while at it, I usually read some pdfs and updates from work (no connection required), after that it stays there mostly unused, until its time for college, then the same usage reapers. If I dont charge at work, I only get it till about 8pm of battery life.

Yeah, its complicated, and my sister phone also has the same issues, I avoid reading mails on the phone, since it would kill the battery life and my wallet (stock updates are done via pdf in my company).

We both have milestones, mine is the first model, hers is the second one.

While I dont see the use of flash, apparently it became so much influencial in the web that people make this kinds of threads in the hope that it will appear in an apple system built in. it wont

 

You can't get full access to the web, even with flash.

- java applets are common on the web, and you can't use them with a mobile
- silverlight content doesn't run on the android. it might eventually, but you and I both are concerned with today rather than tomorrow, because tomorrow html5 will take over completely.

I'm sure there are more proprietary desktop only plugins, but these web technologies are relatively common.

I'm excited to hear what sort of argument you will use to stand against this fact. Enough content is available with just standard web and flash? Silverlight will be available on android eventually?

For mobiles, I would argue that enough content is available with just the standard web and no flash, already. As of today. HTML5 video is usually provided on sites that include video inline. Some content providers go a step further and provide native applications.

I also don't want to regress and go back to the time when you had to have multiple proprietary and unstable plugins to access web content. To make it better, each plugin basically tries to achieve the type of goal: rich web content. Flash still causes crashes regularly. As far as I'm concerned, most of the exclusive flash content that is left on the web consists of games, and those annoying interactive ads. I don't think anyone seriously intends to play flash games on their mobile device when native games exist and don't completely trash the battery.

It's all about html5 from this point on. Flash still doesn't work great on mobiles. Yes, I've seen it recently. I'd rather have no flash and help it die a peaceful death than have to deal with it duck-taped to my mobile and not really working well, persisting around in the dark corners indefinitely.

 

We'll have to wait and see.

 

I want Flash to die as much as you, believe me. It's horribly inefficient, promotes lazy and awful coding and is one of the worst technologies still used on the web.

However, until Flash based games like Farmville/Mafia Wars/< insert every other stupid game on Facebook > die or switch to newer technologies, it sadly just won't die.

There's over 80 million people who play Farmville still and bring in craploads of money to Zynga and Facebook. Until they're absolutely forced to do it, they're not going to switch anytime soon to newer technologies. Companies like Zynga are notoriously lazy...

 

those games are also available in native format on iOS and probably android, correct me if i'm wrong

 

yeah, but people also buy more smartphones now than they did past years. So in the end they are going to make the transition.

I dont know the appeal, never played those kind of games, but my girl friends tell me they are quite fun, the boys are usually watching some pron so its flash based as far as I know

 

The argument is simple, it's closer to full web access with flash.

On android tablets websites can load closer to how they load on your full pc. When I played around with dual core tablets, it seemed to load sites without issues & it should be even better with upcoming quad-core tablets.

An option to enable flash should be there even with warnings of instability & battery if you like.

While the iPad 2 is attractive, it still feels artificially constrained & I look forward to trying out the Asus Transformer 2.

 

Silverlight is an irrelevant technology. It was DOA. I don't have it installed anywhere and have never found a need for it.

Lack of support for Java applets is a problem. They're relatively uncommon compared Flash, but I've hit a few sites where I wish I had it. The sad thing is this should be so easy to support in Android. After all, Java is the primary language for Android development, and you can download and run standalone Java apps by converting their package format from jar to apk.

Of course, I disagree. One of my banking sites require Flash as part of their authentication mechanism, and there are a couple of other sites I visit regularly where Flash is needed for key features. Also, I think you overstate the use of HTML5 for video. The big sites like YouTube and Vimeo support it, but most news sites I frequent don't seem to. And I still have problems with some embedded YouTube videos in Safari, which I don't have Flash installed in.

Like it or not, that is the state of the web today.

Besides, if you're serious, how can you defend the app-centric model where you have to install a different proprietary app for each content provider, not just each type of content?

There's another reason why I want full featured mobile browsing: so I don't have to use apps for web content. Web content apps (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) almost always suck compared to their full web sites. The apps are like the mobile versions of their sites, except needing a separate app to reach it.

 

I'd agree if there was a single relevant website that hasn't already set up their websites to default to H.264 with a fallback to Flash.

Truth of the matter is on any Android tablet, the quality of flash playback is spotty at best. Sometimes smooth, sometimes choppy. Nothing consistent or predictable. Compare those same websites on iOS using h.264 video.

Visit ESPN.com on a Transformer, then try the same videos on iOS. the later is undeniably smoother, while not taxing the system in any meaningful way. I can watch about 9 hours of online h.264 video on my iPad. How long would a Transformer last streaming flash? Justin.tv, UStream or similar can be used to make the point very clearly.

The web isn't just better without flash... It's MUCH better. Thank God most companies and websites got the message.

 

Sure, if this was a PC from 1999. The issue isn't with the hardware or Android itself but rather sloppy Flash coding. I would rather have Apple just deny me access to Flash forcing websites to develop more efficient HTML 5/h.264 versions of what they already offer than be given the option to access Flash websites. That is why on my Droid X, I always run the dedicated app of a website/company instead of accessing them through the default Android browser since I know I am going to run into Flash and I don't feel like bogging down my phone. I would feel differently if Adobe had actually optimized Flash's code over the years for more efficient performance while working with hardware manufacturers to allow for better hardware acceleration (much like the various mpeg groups have) but that hasn't been the case. To me, I would rather just avoid a crappy experience all together than be given the option to do it. I know it seems as if Apple is "controlling" the end-user and I think they are to some extent but it also makes for a smoother operating environment. I have had to close my Droid X's browser a bunch of times due to Flash problems yet I have only had to close Safari on my 4G iPod touch once and that was because I foolishly tried to open a 50MB PDF file.

Either way, Flash really needs to just up and die or actually adapt by doing what I previously stated (better software and better hardware integration). It is also painfully obvious that Flash is not coming out on iOS 5 especially since Apple's presentation today was mainly a repeat of this year's earlier WWDC except for the addition of that card app and the new voice control options (its about time Apple).

 

iPhone 4S vs. the smartphone elite: Galaxy S II, Bionic and Titan -- Engadget

I'm aware my 4.3" screen at full brightness with flash on demand consumes more power but at least Android offers that freedom.

I'm going to try to watch Apple's iPhone 4S presentation but I actually think they made some smart business decisions on price points to compete better with Android devices that in part dominate smartphone marketshare because of price points. I'd like to see Apple offer a larger screen option however as 3.5" is less enjoyable for many users..

 

Can't even watch the video reviews at engadget on the iPad2 in safari or even the engadget native app ( it seems you have to download-pay for a browser app that better deals with flash):

AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II review -- Engadget

I never said it was the best option, just that it is still out there. Again I'm ok with it being off by default, just give the user the option to enable it on demand like you can in Android (even with battery & performance warnings).

Apple dictatorial hubris..another reason why I'm attracted to Android

 

Engadget is just a shell of its former self so its use of Flash isn't a deal breaker IMO.

Now if The Verge (aka the REAL Engadget) doesn't have videos that can be played back on the iPad or iPad 2 then I'll be a little concerned.

 

I assume you're talking about This is my next... as The Verge doesn't really exist yet ?

I do like the former Engadget crew making their podcasts listenable unlike now (just my personal experience as I can't seem to get through Engadget podcasts anymore) so I'll check it out but Engadget is still a popular site that actually has video reviews & useful content.

It was just an example of a tech site that doesn't even comply with iOS flash limitations, I do visit other "non-Apple-compliant" sites as well where Apple's autocratic the world revolves around Apple stance to not allow the users to enable flash on demand makes me less than

 

You are doing a classic mistake a lot of people do on the internet.

You are assuming everybody has the same wants as you do. For example I am really lazy when it comes to my phone. I just want it to work. I don't care all that much about whether I get the whole web, but I want the battery life to stay afloat longer and I don't want to devote many brain cells to it.

Apple has dictatorial control because its easier for lazier and uninformed users to navigate the web when they do that. If you don't like that you get Android. This is classic product differentiation in capitalism. It would be incredibly boring if iOS was the same thing as Android. Not just boring, a lot of people's needs wouldn't be met. Apple differentiates their products to appeal to some people while Android differentiates itself to appeal to others.

This allows more people to find a product they want. If you don't like a product because it doesn't suit your needs don't buy that product. Apple is trying to make things easy for users who don't want to deal with web draining flash or even know what flash is.

Its just basic product differentiation....

Not everybody wants freedom. For me a phone is a phone. I use it to keep in contact with people. I don't really care about customization and all of these other things. I just want it to work, get good battery life, get my e-mails, text messages, and phone calls. Apps and web browsing is a great plus, but not my primary reason for my phone.

 

Even as an informed user, I still prefer no flash.

I understand that what I want cannot be had if flash runs on my phone. Not only will it not work very well and kill the battery, it will also allow developers to leave their content as is. If no one has to change, no change happens.

The fact that flash hasn't been on iOS for a few years has changed the web for the better.

I don't mind adobe providing web development tools, but they can't control the entire pipeline. Web standards must be open, because so many people rely on them. It's just too big a project for one company to control and lock.

 

Actually I don't assume everyone has the same wants as I do, that's why I can often recommend Apple products for parents & other family members-friends.

I don't expect Apple to easily offer the same level of customization or open hardware (the real product differentiation) that Android offers which I enjoy but others don't care much about. Even in Lion I would like to customize the look more but that likely challenges Apple's branding.

Apple's dictatorial control just seems antithetical to freedoms (e.g. they seem to be the only ones now allowed to Think Different) & it makes me feel manipulated.

I still think Apple would actually gain additional market share if they allowed the user more flexibility..

 

Why does this control apply to Adobe & not Apple, I just think people should have the freedom of choice regardless of my personal preferences..

Also there are standards organizations:

HTML5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Wide Web Consortium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

W3c is controlled by over 300 other organizations, their entire purpose is to create web standards. Adobe is a private corporation that makes digital multimedia and web tools. It's in adobe's interest to force developers to use flash and their tools. That effectively earns adobe control over a platform they aren't responsible for. If youll notice, adobe's products are insanely expensive, with frequent paid updates and few new features. They have been able to do that for this while time because they had a monopoly on rich web content development and playback. The web is far and away the biggest platform, ever. The fact that flash was so pervasive made it difficult for android and iOS to access the web. Android users had to wait a long time for flash at all, and continue to wait for flash that performs well. If new platforms crop, they would have had to wait for adobe to release flash for that platform if and when they feel like, and with however much concern for performance they feel like including. Flash on Linux has been slow and buggy forever.

Compared to apple controlling the iPhone? It's their platform, and it's a fraction of the market. You can choose android if you don't want to deal with Apple, but you can't choose the "other web". It doesn't exist. Apple's controls are relatively reasonable. They don't allow developers to put apps that break carrier rules or mess with the phone OS. It makes it easy to use and worry and trouble free to download applications. It's not perfect, some reasonable apps are blocked, but again, you CAN choose android. Being forced to go through apple's storefront is annoying, but if it wasn't forced, then developers wouldn't use it, and in the end it's a benefit to be able to access all the apps in one place. On android you have some apps on the amazon market, others on android's native market. You also have other markets and apps that may be elsewhere entirely.

 

I just got myself one of those firesale HP Touchpads. Even though the Flash Player works quite well (for videos) everything else is a real pain to use since most flash content isn't made for touchscreens. Not to mention the Battery drains WAY to fast.

I surely don't need that on my Iphone / Ipad. I'd rather have a java implementation but i guess that would run even worse

 

I think about the same. Java is more open than flash, but they didn't release comparable rich web content tools until later, and flash had already taken off.

HTML5 (and related tools like javascript and css) provide enough of a short term benefit for most web devs to switch. Basically it earns them video compatibility with iOS devices, along with better prospects for future compatibility.

 

The bottomline is that I visit sites that still utilize flash & some won't load at all on the iPad while loading on Android. Yesterday my dad wanted me to load the following site on his new iPad2 with no luck : Eldorado Stone

This loaded fine on the Asus Transformer when I was in BesBuy today. I look forward to the Asus Transformer 2 which should deliver a more versatile product with less designer limitations.