flash poll on gizmodo

[Maggie Leung]

I wouldn't mind having Flash, but not if it slows surfing.

I rarely use sites with Flash. I think I saw two shopping sites that required Flash when I was looking for iPad accessories. I was shopping on my iPad, so I just went to sites that didn't require Flash and spent money there instead.

[Crowl]

I wouldn't mind it on my phone assuming you have control over using it, but once you go beyond smartphone size then I would expect devices to match up to my browsing experience on my desktop and for now that still includes flash.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by scottjl

developing ads.. is an advertiser going to sink money into developing ads that are only going to be seen by 50% of users (flash required).. or ads that are going to be seen by 100% (non-flash ads)?

% doesn't work as only a tiny percentage of all web browsing is done on mobile devices, and smaller still on Apple mobile devices.

The majority of web ads will be viewed by people on computers, laptops and netbooks which have Flash.

And ad makers have always known that flash was an optional plug in that had to be installed--so they've always known they weren't going to get 100% of web viewers.


All that said, it's silly to focus so much on ads. As an end user, I need Flash to use today's internet as flash is still so prevalent for menus, games and video on the net. If it was only ads, I obviously wouldn't care to have it--and when the net changes so that's the case, then good riddance to Flash.

But gadgets are all shortlived, so I need Flash now as it's not going away on the net in the next year or two. So living in the present, it's a must have feature on a tablet for me.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by scottjl

ads are hardly a red-herring for flash. who do you think pays for your farmville? they don't develop the applications, host them on servers, bandwidth for the users, all out of the kindness of their hearts. yes there's a lot of non-flash use, but in the end, flash is bought and paid for by all the flash ads out there....

And how is this different from the way most of the web works, or free TV, or newspapers and magazines? Someone must pay the expenses involved in providing these services.

Flash is currently used for a lot of things on the web, including ads, only because it is the most efficient vehicle to reach the greatest number of people. Mobile sites use image files instead.

As Flash takes hold in the mobile market (by the end of the year it will be on every major mobile platform, except the iPhone OS), there will be much less pressure on companies to spend resources to build dumbed-down mobile (Flash-less) versions of their sites.

Within a year the majority of Android sales will be of 1.5+MHz, 45nm chips. Products with these come out in a month or two. This will result not only in significant increase in horsepower, but also in reduction in power consumption. So, I'd say the survival of Flash on mobile platforms is well assured.

As to the poll, it's largely a reflection of the war sparked by Steve Jobs, with the iTroops voting in droves against it.

But the rest of the world doesn't really care, they just want to be able to see the web on their tablet or large screen phone in the same way they see it on their desktop.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Sonist

But the rest of the world doesn't really care, they just want to be able to see the web on their tablet or large screen phone in the same way they see it on their desktop.

Exactly.

I don't care about the corporate politics, technical hurdles etc.

All I care about is whatever tablet I get can display every site I visit on my PCs properly.

[Ervserver]

this will all be moot after Jobs runs Adobe out of town

[tripad]

I don't want it either, it's slow, insecure, eats my batery life, overheats my PC