Flash is a technology that had it's best days in PC era.

Probably noone can imagine YouTube or banner ads without Flash technology nowdays, but new devices are coming to market where Flash isn't best choice anymore. Just as floppy disks served world in it's days but are now replaced with USB keys or broadband connections and clouds storages so it looks like Flash had it's days and will be replaced by other solutons (like H.264 codec).

Putting Flash on Android tablets seems like they want to compete "has flash" VS. iPad's "does not have Flash", but that doesn't really serve to users.

It goes the way nature has invented long time ago and it's called evolution - where old dies (even very best of it's time) away and new takes over.

Agreed. I've had two Android phones in a row with 'full flash' support, they were both more responsive with Flash uninstalled.

Regardless of what Adobe says, Flash does not work on mobile devices as of 2011.

I call bullshit. If you have flash disabled or set on-demand in your browser preferences, there is no change in the overall speed or responsiveness of your device, in comparison to flash not being installed.

I left flash enabled. Obviously disabling would do the same as uninstalling.

Go read the HN guidelines, too BTW.

The problem is I have yet to see a livestream solution, that isn't based on Flash. I watch soccer and starcraft livestreams quite often, and also did so on my Android in the subway. On a tablet that what be a must have for me.

This is Apple's solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming

I haven't seen it get used very often, but during SJ keynotes, they have been using this. When I watched, it delivered really high quality video, and managed to stay way smoother than any flash stream I've ever seen under presumably heavy load.

Granted, Apple probably throws a lot of hardware at those events in order to make the tech. look good. So, not an objective appraisal by any means, but it's worked well for me.

Usually you replace an encumbent technology with a better version rather than taking ten steps back. Evolution is about progress, not regression.

The truth is, Adobe's engineering incompetence aside, Flash is a lot, lot better to make programs with than HTML5. Silverlight is a lot, lot better to make programs with than HTML5. Java, C#, Python, Ruby, C++ are all, as a whole, a lot, lot better programming languages than Javascript.

Imagine replacing DVDs with 8 tracks. That's what's happening. It's a perverse scenario, but I can't understand how you can say that it's evolution, evolution is about progress, not regression.

It's Adobe's own fault for neglecting the Mac and Linux for so long, crashing browsers, etc., added with the general menace that PDFs are too and Silverlight was just too late, but let's not pretend the technology's better. It's pretty pathetic and the snail's pace progress of html5 is embarrassing.

And where's ECMAScript 5? What the hell has happened to that, it seems to have dropped off the planet!

> The truth is, Adobe's engineering incompetence aside, Flash is a lot, lot better to make programs with than HTML5. Silverlight is a lot, lot better to make programs with than HTML5. Java, C#, Python, Ruby, C++ are all, as a whole, a lot, lot better programming languages than Javascript.

Your comment isn't very coherent.

-- Other than the fact that "better" is entirely subjective, how many modern web applications in widespread use are based on Flash rather than JS+HTML5? Gmail, facebook, twitter, google docs: no flash. Youtube: flash only for the video codec, not functionality.

-- "ActionScript is a dialect of ECMAScript": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript So what language features were you thinking of that make ActionScript/Flash better than Javascript?

-- Security holes in Flash vs. HTML5? hmm...

-- HTML5 on 64bit Linux? Check. Flash? still buggy.

Horses were replaced not by faster horses, but by cars.

Trains were not replaced by faster trains, but by airplanes.

Good First class travel experience from Europe to Australia will not be replaced by Excelent First class experience, but rather by Suborbital flight (even without meal) which will bring you there in 2hours.

The Motorola Milestone advertised it was "Flash ready" on the packaging. That was in mid 2009. I bought the phone and have been waiting on Motorola to deliver the necessary upgrades ever since. Their release date for Android 2.2 Froyo for the Milestone changed, what, ten times - from mid 2010 to June to August to September to Q4 to end of Q4 to early 2011 to sometime 2011… in October a 2.2.1 test ROM from Motorola leaked (the "G.O.T." ROM), and they still haven't managed to put out a release.

I don't trust Motorola on anything anymore. Their hardware was pretty good, but their service and communication with their customers is abysmal.

So what is the competitive advantage that the Motorla Xoom now has?

And what does it have to justify it's $100 price premium over the iPad?

It has a brand-new UI that is tablet-optimized. I think the principle advantage of any Android tablet over iPad is Honeycomb; with widgets and real multitasking, it's much much more usable as a real computer than the iPad is.

I think it also has two cameras, a significantly faster CPU, other features like that. Really though, the main thing it has going for it is Honeycomb. Most people will be very impressed with it after playing with a demo model in a store. It's much more futuristic and cooler than the now-old iOS icon-grid paradigm.

You lost me at "real computer." In my own experience, one of the biggest reasons that normal customers like the iPad is _because_ it's not like their desktop computer.

The obsession with emulating a desktop/laptop experience is mainly the domain of those of us who are already experts in that experience; for average users who may generally dislike the "real computer", it's not a selling point.

I think he meant that the Xoom is capable of replacing a desktop or laptop; not that it emulates them.

Probably the biggest two features are the dual core processor and the front and rear facing cameras (5 MP camera, 720p HD video capture).

Reportedly the memory is upgradable as well.

In other words, apart from videoconferencing, it has virtually nothing to offer non-hacker customers?

Dual-core and 4x the RAM offer no benefits to non-hacker customers? Sometimes page elements must be reloaded when browsing a SINGLE PAGE on the iPad. Surely you can admit that 4x the RAM would offer a notable boost to browsing experience.

* Can play HD video without downscaling

* Dual-core CPU

* Two cameras

* 4x the RAM (1GB)

* Expandable memory (SD slot)

* Supposedly 4G LTE data

Many of these may be more even when the iPad 2 comes out, but we'll have to wait and see.

4G!

An 'upgrade' feature that has been promised, but will not be available on the day the Xoom ships.

context: http://snasm.com/article/motorola-chief-defends-xoom-pricing...

I go out of my way to avoid using Flash on my Android phone.

Steve Jobs and others are right: Flash apps are not meant for touch screens, or mobile devices in general. I miss it only a little when I'm using iOS.

Well, it seems like Spring 2011 is not actually Spring 2011. Here's Adobe's blog post on the matter: http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2011/02/update-for-fp-1...

Money quote: Adobe will offer Flash Player 10.2 pre-installed on some tablets and as an OTA download on others within a few weeks of Android 3 (Honeycomb) devices becoming available, the first of which is expected to be the Motorola Xoom.

Will the browser have full HTML5 support? Can I go to YouTube in it and watch videos without flash? I admittedly don't know much about the Android 3.0 browser.

Android's browser has supported much of HTML5 for years now. Nobody can claim "full" support since HTML5 is a very vague term with a currently changing set of technologies included. I'm not even sure if it's still called HTML5 actually.

Edit: About Youtube: Yes. You can go there and watch the videos just fine. I think you're (transparently) redirected to the YouTube app.

Yeah, but I don't want to have to be moved to the YouTube app. I want to know if I can use the built in browser to watch HTML5 videos. I know I can do it on YouTube with my PC browser if I enable it on my YT account...

Why don't they adopt click-to-play trick to get the best from both worlds?

Most likely because the browser on the device will be positioned as the real “full web” when it’s upgraded to the 10.2 release. A useful feature that runs counter to a marketing strategy will always get cut.

This is part of the reason Flash was blacklisted from iOS: features have to wait on Adobe’s schedule to be enabled, instead of being available out-of-box.

Or they could have just done what Android did. Allow browser plugins and make it Adobe's problem to put the plugin in the market.

Google isn't holding back on major OS updates because Adobe isn't ready.

From what I've read, and experienced with Flash on the OS X desktop, the issue was caused by Flash beating up hard on the CPU (and thereby causing a battery drain). The last thing Apple wants is to list a battery life in the specs, and then watch some Flash based game decimate it.

Part of the selling point of iOS is that it works well.

And it does. And 3rd party plugins that Apple has no control over reduce the quality of that experience, increase support costs, and generally add instability.

Adobe should never have absorbed Macromedia. Adobe's mainstays (Photoshop, Illustrator) have taken a terrible turn for the worse (slower, buggier, non-native UIs), while getting more expensive at the same time.

Adobe's software used to be indespensable to me, but now there's Pixelmator, which carries the true (old) Adobe legacy. Does anyone know if Pixelmator is going to make a vector tool? If they do, lots of designers will be completely Adobe-free!

Yep. They've had no competition forcing them to do better. At least with Flash they now feel the heat from native H.264 playback and JavaScript/CSS animations.

I voted you up, but I'm not quite sure that's the whole story.

I think Adobe absorbed a bad corporate culture when they acquired Macromedia, and that better accounts for why they're making such bad products now. On top of this, Adobe will never be a successful platform vendor because they suck at making platforms, and the market has too many platforms already.

Will competition somehow make Adobe good again? It might, but it's by no means certain. The long-term alternative for them is failure in the marketplace.

Signs of things turning around for Adobe will be when they: > Make HTML5 the primary target for all Adobe software (make authoring for Flash not the default). > Dump Air. > Make the new Acrobat a slim wrapper around HTML5, facilitating a transition away from Acrobat toward standards. > Stop trying to be cross-platform. Use native UI in all software. Dump the installer on platforms where installers aren't standard (Mac OS X). > make completely new creative applications for iOS. An iOS-based desktop computer is probably coming. If Adobe was smart, it would try to make great native tools for creative professionals again. > Fire the executives they picked up from Macromedia and lay off legacy staff.