Adobe stops developing Flash Player for Mobile Browsers

[Deleted member 13524]

...yes, I'm sure that must have been it.

Oh, you don't know.. Maybe a little clarification here:

Yes, Nokia isn't selling almost any smartphones at all. Yes, sales numbers are down the toilet for the past couple of quarters and so is revenue. It's like a M61 Vulcan with no ammo, as no operators are really interested in the Symbian models since it's been EOL'd and the WP7.5 models have just come out.

However, it still is a M61 Vulcan minigun compared to the 9mm pistols that are the other manufacturers. Nokia's factory output for cellphones is monstrous, its distribution channels and supply chains are unmatched by a very large margin, there are Nokia stores pretty much everywhere (except for US but who cares, that's like trying to make the xbox successfull in Japan anyways..) and they have something like 130k employees, with over 30k of them doing R&D throughout some 15 countries.

These are the assets that have been built over the ~15 years of mobile phone hegemony and can't be discarded just because they lost (or rather gave up) the OS race over the last year and a half.


So make no mistake, as soon as there's a full lineup made of Windows-Nokia devices (Q3 2012?), they will sell hundreds of millions per quarter. Windows Phone may suck (as I think it does, btw), profits per unit may stay low, revenues may still keep low and they might even lose money over a couple of years more.
But with that deal, Microsoft has pretty much made a near-absolute certainty that Windows Phone will get a substantial share of the smartphone market.
And since iphone users are a somewhat constant and loyal audience for apple, these Windows Phone devices will eat into Android's market share, as there's little else to eat from.





Now, going back to Adobe & Flash for mobile devices, let's do a roundup of the smartphone OSes whose integrated browser supports Flash or Lite:

- Android
- Symbian S60, Symbian^1, Symbian^3, Anne, Belle
- BlackBerry
- MeeGo

The ones that don't and won't support Flash:

- iOS
- Windows Phone (at least until desktop + mobile windows unify into a single OS)
BTW: Yes, I know Adobe had announced that a Flash plugin would be released for WP7 back in 2010, but a year has passed, Mango was released and no one talked about it so it was probably scraped along the way, either by Microsoft or by Adobe.

So until recently, just between Android and Symbian, Flash was supported by over 80% (maybe more?) of the mobile browsers. If Symbian+MeeGo hadn't been EOL'd through the Nokia-Microsoft deal, this percentage would've probably remained the same, even with the downward spiral of Blackberry's marketshare.

After the Nokia-Microsoft deal, Adobe is left with only Android supporting Flash, with less than half (and even lesser as WP's marketshare rises) of the mobile devices supporting the platform...


Yes, there's a whole bunch of technical reasons why Flash should be replaced HTML5's native code (although as we've seen in this thread, there's also a couple of reasons why it shouldn't anytime soon).
But as far as I've been aware, that hasn't really changed Flash's monopoly over media content in web pages... which is what really matters in the end.
For example, over a year after people saying Flash was dead because Youtube was starting to support HTML5 in beta, Flash is still used as the default media player.



Anyways, the real reasons for Adobe dropping Flash development (and not support) in mobile devices is probably going to be revealed by Myke Chambers in the near future.

Y'all are forgetting the massive amount of flash animation and games on sites like Kongregate and Newgrounds. Flash is always going to be around, there's too much content that uses it.

Always is a strong word, but I'd say that even if Adobe stopped Flash development and support overall right now, we'd still be a good 4+ years before Flash's absence wouldn't make a noticeable difference in a web browser.

 

[wishiknew]

I wonder if flash dying helps to tilt h.264 over vp8.

 

[hoho]

If Symbian+MeeGo hadn't been EOL'd ..

While they are eol'd Nokia WILL still sell hundreds of millions of brand new devices with those OS'es.

 

[Dominik D]

Exactly Flash can do this today.

Though don't mis-interpret me. I'm not saying Flash is something great. I'm merely stating it works and for some stuff it works better than (non-existing) alternatives

Uhm. There are two problems with your points. One: yes, Flash works for what it was designed for, there's nothing in this thread that tries to falsify this fact. Two: just because you need 2 streams for HTML5 video doesn't mean it doesn't work "just like flash" - in a transparent way. Most Flash videos you watch today stream different videos depending on your settings, connection, etc. High quality content creation for Flash is as demanding as content creation for HTML5. I was responding to the technical question and taking my answer as "a-ha! html5 doesn't work!" argument doesn't hold up. :S

 

[Deleted member 13524]

While they are eol'd Nokia WILL still sell hundreds of millions of brand new devices with those OS'es.

The number Elop claimed was 150M Symbian devices throughout the transition to WP.

Well I doubt the N9 ever surpasses the single-digit million sales worldwide.. regardless, MeeGo won't make any substantial contribution...


Now regarding Symbian devices, well.. that was their projection alright.. but Elop's Ratner "internal memo" + Ratner speech Super Combo back in February, made sure that every geek and phone operator would run away from phones with the O.S...

Looking at the ridiculously fast decline in their smartphone market share during the past 2 quarters, I really doubt they'll sell anywhere near the projected 150 million.
Even if Elop tried to stop the fire saying they'd support Symbian until 2016, and even if Belle is actually fantastic and owns nothing to Gingerbread, the Ratner combo, piss-poor execution resulting in painfully late release dates (for both software and hardware releases) and rather uncompetitive pricing are making sure that Symbian^3/Anna/Belle devices aren't getting any love.

 

[idsn6]

Anyways, the real reasons for Adobe dropping Flash development (and not support) in mobile devices is probably going to be revealed by Myke Chambers in the near future.

He just posted them.

Oddly, I can't find any mention of Nokia or Windows Phone 7 at all.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

He just posted them.

Oddly, I can't find any mention of Nokia or Windows Phone 7 at all.

The Flash Player was not going to achieve the same ubiquity on mobile as it has on the desktop

WP is pretty much implied in it.

 

[Ike Turner]

People should also remember that the final nail in the coffin was the announcement that Flash (or any other plugin) won't be supported in in Metro Internet Explorer 10 on Windows 8.

 

[Pressure]

People should also remember that the final nail in the coffin was the announcement that Flash (or any other plugin) won't be supported in in Metro Internet Explorer 10 on Windows 8.

It didn't really come into considerations as to why Flash for Mobile devices were scrapped.

This one should be pretty apparent, but given the fragmentation of the mobile market, and the fact that one of the leading mobile platforms (Apple's iOS) was not going to allow the Flash Player in the browser, the Flash Player was not on track to reach anywhere near the ubiquity of the Flash Player on desktops... Just to be very clear on this. No matter what we did, the Flash Player was not going to be available on Apple's iOS anytime in the foreseeable future

So there you have it, they couldn't get the same market penetration as they currently have on the desktop.

 

[Ike Turner]

It didn't really come into considerations as to why Flash for Mobile devices were scrapped.

Sure it's not the Mobile Flash Player but when the biggest software platform no longer supports you (in the Browser version that will be used +99% of the time on Win8 tablets) then it's time to rethink your whole strategy (mobile and desktop).

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Sure it's not the Mobile Flash Player but when the biggest software platform no longer supports you (in the Browser version that will be used +99% of the time on Win8 tablets) then it's time to rethink your whole strategy (mobile and desktop).

What makes you assume IE10 won't get the same "anti-popularity" as IE9 did?

 

[tangey]

"Why did Adobe Decide to no longer develop the Flash Player for Mobile Browsers?"

"This one should be pretty apparent, but given the fragmentation of the mobile market, and the fact that one of the leading mobile platforms (Apple’s iOS) was not going to allow the Flash Player in the browser, the Flash Player was not on track to reach anywhere near the ubiquity of the Flash Player on desktops."

"Just to be very clear on this. No matter what we did, the Flash Player was not going to be available on Apple’s iOS anytime in the foreseeable future."

Apples lack of support is the main reason cited, which should not come as a surprise to most. When you have 200m+ devices that are amongst the highest moblie Internet consuming products on the market, growing at a rate of 150m+ a year and rising, signed in blood that they won't ever be using your mobile Internet based technology, its time to reconsider.

Windows/Nokia unsurprisingly does not get a mention.

 

[Lazy8s]

Adobe already knew iOS wasn't going to use it and iOS was already phenomenally popular, so Apple not using Flash there may have been the main reason for the decision yet the loss of opportunity in Windows mobile platforms could just as well have been the tipping point.

 

[Dominik D]

The Flash Player was not going to achieve the same ubiquity on mobile as it has on the desktop

Which it reached because Flash was bundled with XP.

 

[zed]

Have you seen any proper HTML5 implementations of some of the more complex flash stuff? If so could you perhaps link to them?

I'll ask the reverse, are there any flash apps that equal this that I can try out (my first html5 webgl app, Ive improved a lot since then)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pdcjmcoakgklifndgbjfcidadbadlfaa
note - it does work on all html5/webgl browsers but to try the above version u need t o use chrome & have a goggle (eg gmail) account

 

[Dominik D]

Yes, there are lots of 3D examples in Flash. Starters:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/3d_animation.html
There's Molehill introduced "recently" too:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adc-presents/molehill-3d-apis/

It's also worth mentioning that Adobe is now partnering with Epic and you will be able to embed UE in Flash:
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/04/epic-and-adobe-announce-unreal-engine-3-support-for-flash-11/

Have a look at this thing:
http://ecodazoo.com/
One of the most amazing Flash 3D things out there, IMO.

 

[hoho]

note - it does work on all html5/webgl browsers

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. HTML5 and especially webgl is NOT portable enough yet.

 

[argor]

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. HTML5 and especially webgl is NOT portable enough yet.

you have to remember that html5 is still a evolving standard and some parts of it are more final while other are still work in progress like WebSockets
some part of it like canvas are already portable enough

i would say that webgl is starting to stabilize and is getting more portable as the webbrowersmaker improve comparability
here is nice blog on news on webgl http://learningwebgl.com/blog/

flash fanboys like you just have to accept its is inevitable that html5 will takeover flash except maybe with dmr video

and in the long run make the browers more secured like stop that the same vulnerability affect more than one brower

 

[zed]

One of the most amazing Flash 3D things out there, IMO

And yet is it better than anything Ive done ages ago? well technically no. how can I make the window bigger I'ld like to see it fullscreen, i.e. see how performance changes?
now looking at that low polygon flash scene I see it uses 150MB & 60%cpu
the (more complicated) vampire balls games uses 70MB & 40%cpu rendering ~3x the number of pixels with 4xMSAA.
we have a clear winner and thats when I wasnt even that good at javascript/webgl Ive written about 6-7 programs since then, the latest is a minecraft voxel like game with millions of voxels onscreen. i.e. pretty CPU intensive

HTML5 and especially webgl is NOT portable enough yet.

um how portable is flash 3d, I believe it was only available for the first time last month or is that assumption wrong, as since the whole thread is about flash 'dying' I'ld say its future aint too bright.

DISCLAIMER - I like actionscript better than javascript, and professionally have only developed flash applications (though not for a couple of years)

 

[Dominik D]

some part of it like canvas are already portable enough

No, they aren't portable enough. It's PITA to work with canvas at this point. I've written a lot of canvas code in the last few months and they are pretty far from being easily usable. I wrote about it before in this thread.

i would say that webgl is starting to stabilize and is getting more portable as the webbrowersmaker improve comparability

This won't solve security issues and incompatibilities on the hardware/driver level. It's been mentioned before in this thread as well.

flash fanboys like you just have to accept its is inevitable that html5 will takeover flash except maybe with dmr video

Just because someone has different POV than you doesn't make him a fanboy. Furthermore, calling someone who's not misbehaving a fanboy is the actual act of fanboism.

and in the long run make the browers more secured like stop that the same vulnerability affect more than one brower

Huh?

And yet is it better than anything Ive done ages ago? well technically no. how can I make the window bigger I'ld like to see it fullscreen, i.e. see how performance changes?

It's not demoscene, pushing more polys for the sake of pushing more polys won't make people go bonkers over your code. Technology is not about raw performance or theoretical capabilities, it's about tools, ease of use, content pipeline, feature set, performance and a lot of other things. Site I linked to is much, much older than your sample. It predates Molehill and AFAIK runs on a SW renderer.

But there's another crucial thing: it's not my game to convince you with amazing links that Flash is better in some respect. It makes no sense since you can always say that you prefer something else regardless of any scale we'll use to measure how awesome something is. If you were really carving to see what Flash is capable of, you'd search for it yourself. Looking at one link and concluding that this is crap convinces me that you're not interested to see what's possible and what's not; you just want to validate your POV.

And the reality (whatever it is) is extremely complicated when it comes to Flash and HTML5. If we try to quantify what's "better" we will always fail.