back to article Google mocks Jobs with Flash on Android

Google has unveiled a new incarnation of Android: version 2.2, codenamed Froyo. And yes, it includes support for Adobe Flash Player 10.1. "It turns out that on the internet, people use Flash," Google vice president of engineering Vic Gundotra said this morning as he unveiled the new Android at the company's annual developer …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. fishman


    Even if flash is dead, it will still take several years before it would be irrelevent. Of course, having smartphones that run flash would slow the decline of flash.


    If 80% of the smartphones had flash capability, and 20% didn't, who would be hurt more, Apple or Adobe? Apple has had a big advantage with the iphone far superior to other smartphones as a web device. With Android phones becoming good enough, as good, or better than the iphone, and available on multiple carriers, Apple will either have to bite the bullet and accept flash, or become a much smaller player.

    1. blapping

      nice spelling and grammar

      but you're obviously on another planet. Have you not paid any attention to the I.T. business over the past 30 years?

      Apple have it sewn up. It's unfortunate, but it's incredibly improbable they're not going to be the next Microsoft.

      1. Stevie Silver badge


        Well, okay but I remember when they had it all sewn up once before and were determined to be the next IBM.

        Personally I believe that Apple things are innovative, attractive, overpriced objects that show the way for people to develop cheaper alternatives.

        If I'm junking it out in the same lifetime anyway (as experience with family members' kit has shown to be the case) I'd rather not pay the Apple Tax.

        Or does my irony detector need new batteries?

      2. Steven Knox

        Sewn Up?

        The best figures I've seen for Apple are 7% computer market share, 25% smartphone market share. So over 90% (the vast majority of them running some Microsoft OS) of computers are not Apple computers, and almost 75% of smartphones are not iPhones (in fact, 40% -- 1.6x as much as Apple's -- are Blackberries).

        So there is simply no definition of "sewn up" that I know of that applies to Apple with respect to the IT market. He may be on another planet, but you've clearly been drinking too much kool-aid.

        1. blapping

          yes, sewn up.

          the iphone was released 3 years ago, and they have a 25% market share. They've just released a computer for £400 following the same usage model as the iphone. If you don't think that's sewn up, then I don't think I'll be following any of your financial advice thank you very much!

          I'm currently trying to sell my fathers laptop on ebay because he's insisting on getting an ipad, because he can actually use it.

          It may seem odd to you and I, but the ipad is what the rest of the population have been waiting for.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Thumb Down


            Apple might be new to phone, but they have been developing OSes for 30 years now, Google has been developing OSes for what 4 years only. Already Android has beaten Microsoft Windows Mobile another 30 year old OS developing company. Apple is next. Apple might retain a significant chunk of smartphone industry, but it is not going to dominate it, thank god for Google. Android will remain a viable competitor.

          2. max allan

            Stevie says it's not a computer

            The big J would insist that the iPad is NOT a computer and it's never intended to replace one. Which is why it skips things like external storage and USB ports.

            However, your point really just shows what a bad user experience Windows/OSX/Linux are for the uninitiated. Older folk can use the iPad/phone because it's got simple click here buttons that do what it says on the button.

            They can't use windows because they have to go to the start menu to stop it, the "page up" key moves the page down and all sorts of other little niggles that just confuse (and yes I've had conversations about both those 2 issues).

            Android hasn't made it into this arena yet and I expect it won't. It's trying to be more of a confusing computer OS instead of breaking the mould and doing something different that people don't need training to understand.

            (There are lots of Windows training courses and not many iPad/phone courses)

            However, that gives Android a better life span because the growing generation don't need the easy UI of Apple, they can understand Windows.

            So, for the next 5 years or so, I reckon iPhone like OS will be useful for the oldies, till everyone understands Windows-like interfaces. But then will fade away.

            However, in 5 years I can't imagine there won't be something different to iPad/AndroidPad anyway. (Or we'll all have been replaced by engineered bacteria)

            1. vic 4

              Android requires understanding Windows?

              > However, that gives Android a better life span because the growing generation don't need the easy UI of Apple, they can understand Windows.

              I've got my android phone and a windows desktop in front of me, I can not see one thing the have remotely in common from a UI perspective.

            2. Anonymous Coward

              RE: Stevie says it's not a computer

              "They can't use windows because they have to go to the start menu to stop it"

              Back in the 90s when I was doing my computer science degree, we had a course in human-computer interaction. Part of it was around UI design.

              I can tell you this much for nothing - having the "stop" function (shutdown) hidden inside a menu called "Start" is pretty counter-intuitive.

          3. Joel Mansford

            Good Luck...

            ...replacing a laptop with an iPad.

            IMO most people getting iPads are of the "ooooo shiny" brigade.

            1. Anonymous Coward

              @Joel Womansford

              News flash: your opinion != fact

          4. Anonymous Coward

            Correcting a few points

            Just wanted to correct some minor issues with posters in this thread. Firstly, Apple themselves only claim that they have 16.1% of the worldwide smartphone market. They did very very well in the US, but outside the US they haven't done anywhere near as well. And in fact, in their prime market (the US) the first quarter of this year saw Android based phones outsell Apple varieties. So let's be honest here. Apple are far from having "sewn up" any market other than portable music players.

            Apple will survive remarkably well because they are sat on a huge cash-pile and would have to have a number of devastatingly bad product releases before this position would be remotely affected.

            Mac OSX is nothing more than a niche product. More people are still using IE6 for web browsing than use OSX. The iPhone, unless they get it off AT&T in the US pretty rapidly, has built a good position, but is already starting to lose it. The iPad will be no more than a niche product. The key product which they have which is dominant is definitely the iPod (and iPod touch which should always fall in the music player category and not the phone category that Apple would like you to think of it in).

        2. Wibble

          You're counting a Blackberry as a smartphone?

          This discussion is about Flash usage. The Blackberry has a lousy web browser and effectively isn't much cop for surfing. Similarly the Windows mobile internet exploder thingie.

          It would be a lot better if you sub-divided "smartphones" into them that browse (iPhone, Android), and those that don't.

          Using that, Apple have a much greater proportion of smartphone browsing devices.

          1. Geoff Campbell
            Thumb Up


            Windows Mobile is quite a nice browsing platform, on the right phone. The HTC Touch Pro 2, for example, works very well for general Web access.


      3. vic 4
        Thumb Down

        They blew it

        Part of Microsoft's success was not restricting what developers could do or how they did it, thus making it easier/possible to give users what they wanted. Apple are gradually pushing developers away, of course, to paraphrase an old popular beat combo "there's still time for apple to change the road they are on".

      4. Geoff Campbell

        Not a bloody chance....

        Apple have an excellent business model, but it's based on a loyal user base willing to pay a premium for the design characteristics that they embody (and before the fanbois start yelping, I mean that in both the artsy external design and the hardware/software design, both of which they do well).

        This premium allows Apple to make profit margins per unit that most other hardware manufacturers can only dream of, but it also means that they will always have a limited share of the market, which has always been primarily cost-driven. Add to that the disadvantages of a closed system for some markets, and I confidently predict that Apple will always remain a niche player in the wider market. Which is almost certainly where they want to be, so that's not a criticism, just an observation.


        1. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Down

          @Geoff Campbell

          Niche player in the wider market? I've no idea what that means. I would never dare to call the second-largest company on the S&P 500 Index in terms of market capitalization a niche player. Never.

          As for loyal user base, iPhone and the iPad has gone after (and won) new consumers that previously had *never* bought Apple. There is no loyal user base they drew on for these products.

          1. Geoff Campbell

            @AC - Some Definitions

            Niche player: A company with a small number of products all defined by an over-arching design or technical philosphy, and a market share that is in the lower quartile.

            Wider market: The technology market generally.

            Loyal user base: Those who will look to a given supplier first, then only to others if they cannot find what they want from that supplier.

            All three seem to me to cover Apple nicely. They are very, very good at what they do, as I said. But they are only dominant in MP3 players, not in any of the other markets they have products in.


    2. Disintegrationnotallowed


      Or when people actually try to use the fantastic capabilities of Flash on their smart new phone it runs every site like a dog, facebook games crash a lot, and their phone runs through battery 3 times faster than normal (even though they have shut down the flash link or are only looking at flash laden advertising), people will get hacked off....

      Don't talk to me about flash blocking, nobody, and I mean nobody who I know outside of the IT/Tech savvy world is using flash block unless a friend puts it on for them. When I did it for my ex she whinged coz she had to turn it back on when she wanted to play poxy farmville.

      Not having flash is a PITA on my iphone, and would for now stop me getting an ipad tbh, but I prefer that to the nightmare of crashing applications.

      The money share thing is nonsense and a red herring, many apps on the Iphone are free, nothing to stop those being done for the iphone too...

      1. Tom Chiverton 1

        Clearly you've not tried it

        The Flash player on my N900 phone rocks. Solid as. Flash 10.1 on Android does all sorts of clever things to address the problems you see, but as you didn't take the time to read TFA, I expect you'll ignore me too.

    3. Danny 14 Silver badge


      Apple has had a big advantage with the iphone far superior to other smartphones as a web device

      that is quite subjective. The iphone is useless for me. Oddly enough winmo still works well enough for my needs and apps. My android phone is relegated to a backup.

  2. Doshu
    Thumb Up


    Like the man said, it's out there, people use and enjoy it, so why not let them have it.

    Doesn't mean we can't keep working on something better in the meantime (html5, whatever, etc...).

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up


    "It turns out that on the internet, people use Flash,"


  4. Anonymous Coward
    Jobs Horns

    Flash is normal

    What I find interesting is that just because one company won't support Flash, anyone else who does is now seen as somehow special. It shouldn't be news that someone is letting Flash run on a Linux device, or any other 'smart' device. In 2010, that should be considered normal, especially when you consider the resources and screen resolutions of what is effectively a modern day PDA.

    It's like Apple announcing that they're going to stop using CPUs with maths co-processors and then the press making a big fuss over any other manufacturer who subsequently releases a device that *still* comes with a maths co-processor.

    Apple are the weird ones, not the rest of the world.

  5. Anonymous Coward

    Nice, but how about implementing actual phone features?

    I'm delighted that they're continuing to advance the platform and introduce new & innovative features. But it sure would be nice if they'd work on some of the core features of a phone - did you know that you can't initiate a hands-free call with Bluetooth or voice-dial without having to look at & touch the phone? At least not natively - there's a few apps that bridge most (but not all) of that gap, but you shouldn't NEED them, it's a PHONE, even my cranky 6 year old LG dumb-phone can initiate a call by voice command just by hitting the button on the BT headset!

    #1 issue on Google's problem board, and they've been ignoring it for about 2 years now:

    1. Stevie Silver badge


      Or even the voice quality during a call.

      Do you remember the old analogue cell phones? battery life was measured in minutes but you could actually understand what the person on the other end of the call was saying.

      A recent study showed that even the J. Phone had only "good" voice quality during a call, even though the sound during mp3 playback was rated "excellent".

      An industry spokesperson apparently said this was because in consumer polls, voice quality in-call was the least desirable feature of any new model phone.

      Think about that. The people polled (i.e. the young and desperate-for-new-gizmos) didn't think the phone part of a new phone mattered much. I guess that's because texting is now so popular, but I wish to Azathoth the phone companies would statr marketing a voiceless communication device to these people so they could start offering JAP (Just A Phone) in which the circuitry is dedicated to ensuring an unbroken, intelligible phone conversation.

      1. Anonymous Coward


        I see we're busy concentrating on the actual point of the article (Flash) and not just trying to berate the phones we don't have in a flurry of drooling fanboism.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      It is now

      According to one of the Android sites, voice dialling via Bluetooth is available in the new Ver. 2.2 (Froyo).

    3. karakalWitchOfTheWest


      Maybe because call by voice is the most unimportant feature of a phone?

      In reality it is faster, when I make one touch with my finger on my favourite list on my HTC Desire than try to communicate with my phone to make it understand what I want (and every voicecontrol on any phone didn't work flawlessly)

      So it is definitely not important and IMHO they can go on to ignore it for at least another 10 years...

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Voice unimportant

        "Maybe because call by voice is the most unimportant feature of a phone?"

        You are probably right, but that's about as intuitive as having Shutdown in the Start menu.

        Can we have a new word for these hand-held devices, please?

    4. Geoff Campbell

      Voice dialling over Bluetooth is in Android 2.2, released yesterday.

      I am pretty impressed with the speed and focus of Android development, in fact. If I were Microsoft I'd be very worried by what this says about the relative agility of the two companies.


  6. Martin Lyne

    Flash - ahhh-ah - HE SAVED EVERY ONE OF US

    HTML5 *is* the future.. but Flash *is* the current - and ignoring the current is a great way of screwing your future.

    Android/Chrome will support HTML5 AND Flash.

    Looking forward to a 2.2 Phone on which to play Newgrounds games (this news is actually bigger than it appears - If it only supported FlashLite 3/4 like WinMo, meh, but Full FP10 is great news)

    1. blapping

      it doesn't matter

      none of it matters. Flash is a competing platform to Apple. If Apples devices supported Flash they wouldn't be able to take a cut on apps sold. That's their business model. And "it turns out, in the current market, people use Apple devices". Google are several steps behind Apple and grabbing at straws.

      As an aside, I find it strange that the Register was full of anti-Flash stories and comments, but now Apple have publicly declared they're definitely not going to support it, suddenly Flash is some kind of human right being denied.

      I rarely unblock a Flash app with FlashBlock - and I know most of you do the same.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Except... it does.

        Well, considering that your [perhaps below] average internet user couldn't tell you what flash is, instead it is 'internet video' or the thing that plays music on myspace, or that powers the games on Facebook, it may annoy people who purchase their half-a-grand piece of whizzkiddary and discover they can't do a lot of the things they WANT to do, that they COULD have done on a £200 netbook.

        I find that the denizens of El Reg, much as how I love you all, forget that they are often above averagely tuned into what goes on in the intertubes. The problem with Apple is that they seem to have taken a dislike, and turned it into a disadvantage. Until HTML5 and h.264 are on equal - if not higher - terms of use on the internet, then there is no point in continuing the boycott.

        If you need a car every day, but your car is slow, you don't then scrap that car and wait a year to save up the money to buy a faster one. You slog it out, until you can afford to change...

      2. rurik bradbury

        Several steps behind?

        Android device sales are now around 100,000 per day. iPhone sales are at around 95,000 per day ( they sold 8.75m in the most recent quarter). So which one is 'several steps behind'..? Android used to be behind but now it is ahead, and accelerating away. This is looking like Windows vs Mac in the 1980s all over again.

        1. Rob

          I never thought I'd say this but...

          ... I used to be a WinMo user just because of the functionailty and connectivity that it's had since the original SPV phone I bought back in 2002.... this Android OS though has seriously stopped me in my tracks, next contract renewal is going to be an Android phone, my non-techy missus has one and she loves it, seems I'm the one behind the times compared to her.

        2. Danny 14 Silver badge


          but being ahead in sales doesnt make it any better. Although I dont like the iphone android is far from perfect too.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        RE: it doesn't matter

        "If Apples devices supported Flash they wouldn't be able to take a cut on apps sold."

        Two things:

        1, There are FREE apps on the store. If you're going to give away an app for free then it hardly matters how you distribute it - you still make nothing.

        2, The problem with Flash (the ones I've seen) is that it drains battery life like there's no tomorrow. Oh, and it crashes my desktop browser pretty regularly... These are both pretty commonly mentioned items in discussions about Flash!

        "I rarely unblock a Flash app with FlashBlock - and I know most of you do the same."

        You're right there! I wouldn't call them "Flash app"s though - more like "annoying adverts"!

    2. Danny 14 Silver badge


      support the future but include the current.

  7. Joel Fiser
    Big Brother

    Don't mess with Flash

    Steve Jobs - meet a million of the best and most creative Web Developers in the World. And when you're ready - if you're still relevant, we'll be there for you too.

    1. Sean Timarco Baggaley

      "meet a million of the best and most creative Web Developers in the World"

      If you're using Flash, you're NOT a web developer. You're a *Flash* developer.

      That's kind of Apple's point, really. Flash is a platform in its own right.

      Frankly, any web designer who insists on using Flash should be taken out and shot. Flash is a plug-in, not an integral part of the web standards.

  8. Kagehi

    Open is better in this case.

    Why? Well, aside from the fact that it means the standard can be better understood, instead of relying on the hope that the non-open one will work right, Flash is also a ***plugin***. The #1 problem I run into with Firefox, and the fact that I prefer to leave it open is.... flash movies. They eat up memory, then don't release it, and eventually that lags other applications and/or prevents Firefox from closing properly, when I do shut it down. Some clients, which **already** have huge memory footprints, like say.. the various Second Life/OpenSim clients, do not support **any** plugins at all, just HTML, CCS, and other standard features of those "inbuilt" non-plugin systems. I am sure other people can think of cases where plugins are either not available, not a good solution, cause problems, or are simply not a viable solution.

    What HTML5 gives everyone is a way to include video without all the external, third party, junk slapped on top, much of which doesn't, and can't, integrate gracefully with what ever you glue it to. For me, at least. Flash is a ***major*** road block to dozens of things I would like to do in-world in Second Life, including running free TV streams, especially when many people already have issues running the Quicktime streams, which are supported, in the client, without it crashing on them as well, never mind adding yet one more, and from my experience, less stable, one. It makes about as much sense to me as the discovery that Yahoo refuses to update to 5.x PHP, or provide archival tools in their small business web service, because, "At this time we don't think people need that." o.O People don't need a faster way to archive and download/upload large batches of files from their pages, **at least**? Give me a break.

    Same mentality. Everyone uses X, so lets support X, even if Y would make more damn sense, and be usable by more people. Bloody annoying.

    1. Cameron Colley

      In the mean time, everyone uses Flash.

      Can't disagree with the fact HTML5 will be nice for web video when it's commonplace (at least if it gets a free video CODEC) -- but at present most things are done with Flash so it's good to have.

      As for the SL thing -- in my opinion they'd have been better using a Flash plugin for video from day one and not relying on an Apple product -- quicktime's a pain in the arse on Windows and on Linux it's not there.

    2. Oninoshiko

      here that?

      that would be the point wooshing past you.

      Google wasn't saying "Flash is open" google is saying "Android is open."

      So, you want to run flash apps on you phone? Google doesn't care, It's your phone, you paid for it! OTOH Apple does care, because they think they still own the phone you paid for.

      And yes, if people actually use X not supporting X is pretty damn stupid. You can still support Y that less people use if you want, but that doesn't exclude also supporting X. (We call what you did there a "affirming a disjunct") You also are setting up some quite well-crafted strawmen, in the implicit assumption that the only usage for flash is for videos (it's also used to make stupid online games, that could eat into Apple's profit from their apps store if they allowed it), and that Yahoo's refusal to implement something you want has any baring on Google's willingness to implement something you don't.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Same Same

      Saying that only flash kills your machine is either luck, or else you just visit different sites.

      The two things that crash my Firefox are, in order...

      1) crappy javascript - mainly on fb apps like mafiawars (and no, its not the flash bits).

      2) crappy flash video players on porn sites.

      Opera, by the way, works perfectly for me with flash, and only crashes (rarely though) on facebook javascripts.

      It's not the tools, it's the completely crap and unqualified shite-thick developers that tout their CVs through BS recruitment agencies that couldn't tell the difference between a burger-flipper and a 5* chef.

      Most of the javascript developers and flash developers I come across are people who in a previous generation would be chopping wood or cutting hair. These ubiquitous imbeciles are exactly the people that are the first to put 'I Can Do HTML5!' on their cvs.


      1. Anonymous Coward

        RE: here that?

        "And yes, if people actually use X not supporting X is pretty damn stupid. You can still support Y that less people use if you want, but that doesn't exclude also supporting X."

        I think a more realistic analogy is that certain companies are fed up with horse-based travel and are about to release automobiles. It looks like the company that makes the most horse-drawn carts (carts which crash all the time btw) are being ditched more and more by roadside inns who are starting to mull over selling petrol instead of hay...

        "You also are setting up some quite well-crafted strawmen, in the implicit assumption that the only usage for flash is for videos (it's also used to make stupid online games,"

        Yep. There are inevitably more on-line videos played through flash than there are games. One simple reason for this is that any fool can upload a video to YouTube. Also, as you rightly say the games are "stupid" so they get few players...

        Hardly takes a genius to draw a conclusion there.

        "that could eat into Apple's profit from their apps store if they allowed it)"

        Umm, so let me get this straight.

        Releasing an application for free on the internet is somehow different from releasing it for free on Apple's store because Apple won't make a profit?

        Adobe will though - their development environment is £1679.08 (in Adobe's own store). Last I looked you could buy just about every Apple development environment available for less than that (the OSX one is free and the iPhone one is less than £100!)

        1. Oninoshiko
          Paris Hilton

          letters and/or digits.

          There was no analogy. This is the situation. More end-users use flash then HTML 5. More sites use flash then HTML 5. X is flash. Y is HTML 5 video tags. Not supporting what everyone is useing is stupid.

          Your analogy is quite awful, probibly the worst I've heard all year (congradulations!). There is not enough room in this forum to address everything wrong with it.

          I would be perfectly content to retire on the profit made on Newground's flash games page. While they may be stupid, they are fairly popular, and there is money to be made.

          Nothing is free. the free apps on the internet are paid for with ads. free apps on Apple's site are to entice you to buy the paid product the developer is selling, for that privilage it's less than "£100!" PER YEAR, plus 30% of any sales revenue (ie if you sell your fart simulator on the iphone store for £1 (common) apple gets £.3 and you only get £.7). adobe's flash development enviroment is £653.30 (note: at this price i can keep useing it as long as it suits my needs), plus no additional fees. If I make a flash app that I sell access to for £1 dont give anything else to Adobe. In addition, unlike the iPhone SDK I can use the flash for more then one platform. The iPhone is a closed platform, and it's tool is a one-system-only tool.

  9. Flash_Penguin
    Jobs Halo

    Flash on the penguin

    Does this mean that Adobe have fixed the rather significant problem of choppy video playback of Flash on Linux? Last time I checked it was awful... I really would like to effectively use iplayer on XBMC again.

    1. davcefai

      Choppy Playback?

      I have not noticed any choppiness not due to the download speed on both an AMD 2700MHz and a Twin core AMD (4800 I think). Maybe it's time you tried again.

  10. James Foster


    Gundotra is a hypocrite. How can he possibly call Apple a 1984 company. Google collects more personal information than any other organisation in history, merely to sell more ads. I quite like Android. I want a Bing app so I can cut the cord with Google. Just like I've cut the cord with Apple.

    1. max allan

      Err Bing = Microsoft = Windows Mobile?

      "Bing App" ? Do you mean OS ?

      In which case Windows Mobile. Welcome to short battery life, annoying slowness and regular reboots.

      Or do you really mean application, in which case you mean Internet Explorer.

      Or do you want to cut the cord with google, by running their operating system and browser but searching by going to (which you can already do) ? NB There is no "google search" app on android that I'm aware of, it's just a bookmark in the browser. And the iPhone has a google search box at the top of it's browser.

    2. Ian Yates
      Thumb Up

      Colour me confused

      What would a "Bing app" do?

      I'm using Android 2.1 even though I'm not a huge fan of handing personal data over to Google (or anyone).

      If I chose to, I could remove my Google sign in and lose gmail and the cloud backup of calendar and contacts - and I guess the official Market would also stop working.

      I haven't done it myself, but you can use the Exchange support to switch from Google.

      My point is really that Android is not as dependant on Google as some might think; which is obviously a good thing.

  11. Tony Paulazzo

    The title.

    I rarely unblock a Flash app with FlashBlock - and I know most of you do the same.<

    Yea, but my niece and mum do, the iPads target market?

    Personally speaking, if the iPad had come with pen (scribblings converted to text), and voice recognition, its upcoming OS4 update with limited multitasking; and still 12 hours of battery life, I probably would'a gone over to the dark side.

    Instead I'm just gonna get an android 3+ inch phone at end of contract.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      The dark side

      Speaking of going over to the dark side, I suspect that delivering your wishlist with 12 hours of battery life using currently available technology would indeed have required some kind of Faustian pact.

      Engineering is about compromises. Apple have compromised on not supporting their competitors main Advert platform. Since I don't particularly care for *any* major player in the industry right now, I'm happy just to watch them all slug it out.

  12. Stefing

    "Google likes to name Android releases after desserts"

    You have doughnuts for dessert?

    Nothing would surprise me.

    1. NightFox


      I'm waiting for the Spotted Dick release

  13. SlabMan

    Google platforms

    Google on your phone, Google on your TV, Google on your netbook, Google on your tablet. Yes, Google is shaping up to be the next Microsoft. That's why HP bought Palm. Like Apple, they want to control their destiny, and profits. This is even more crucial when dealing with Google who have a history of dropping initiatives when they get bored, and who have greater, and ongoing, control over the customer experience than the manufacturers do. The only reason any manufacturer would want to be Google's bitch is because it's easy.

  14. Anonymous Coward


    One day everyone is cheering Google for being the saviour's of the open web (VP8) and today they are cheering because they are now the saviour's of the closed web (Flash). Yay, for rampant hypocrisy!

  15. Rogerborg

    iPhone has 25% smartphone share?

    I can hear the Qualcomm execs hooting with laughter as they roll around on the floor in vast piles of cash.

    25% in what market, and what US-slewed definition of "smartphone"? Globally, iPhone, Blackberry and Android are all penny-ante planers. Y'all might want to look at their (non) penetration into the Far (and increasingly the Middle) East, where everybody and their dog are smartphoned out the wazoo.

    1. David Beck


      40% WW market share for "smartphone" which does not include say the 6700 since it doesn't have wifi and is on the S40 software.

    2. ThomH Silver badge

      Having had a look

      The iPhone is the top selling smartphone in Japan, where it accounted for 72% of smartphones sold in the fiscal year ending March 31, according to the Wall Street Journal. It was launched in South Korea and China only about half a year ago and I can't find any penetration figures. Ditto for Blackbery and Android in those markets.

      So, ummm, sounds like you're just asserting things that you wish were true?

      1. Kay Burley ate my hamster
        Thumb Down

        I guess everyone else had already bought their phones...


  16. Dirk Vandenheuvel


    I turned off Flash a few months ago, just to see what would happen. The funny thing is, I have not turned it on again. It seems the Internet really doesn't need Flash at all. Steve is right on this one. Google is just trying to be a jack of all trades and master of none in this case.

  17. Neil Greatorex


    I don't think you used enough *'s in your post, here's a few more for future use.


    Perhaps if the comments section were Flash enabled you could have animated your post :-)

  18. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

    @Tony Paulazzo, If.

    "Personally speaking, if the iPad had come with pen (scribblings converted to text), and voice recognition, its upcoming OS4 update with limited multitasking;"

    - then it'd be a Windows Tablet PC.

    "and still 12 hours of battery life"

    ...ah. Can't help you there. :-)

    If Bill Gates had large wheels instead of feet then he'd be a Segway HT, but what's the point of saying so?

    (Admittedly it was my idea to bring it up...)

  19. Anonymous John

    Froyo = frozen Yoghurt.

    I imagine Android 2.3 will be Gooseberry something.

    You heard it here first.

    1. Geoff Campbell

      Android 2.3....

      ....has already been announced. Gingerbread. Good guess, though, if tinged a touch by wrongness.

  20. Stefing

    Quoting from fanboy central...

    Apple worshipping Gizmodo seems to look upon Froyo rather more favourably:

    Google's last 18 months have been a period of frantic catchup, in which we saw Android reach feature parity with iPhone OS, the Android Market explode, and Google's confidence slowly build. Apple had been setting the terms of the battle, baiting Google into action. The competition was fierce, but the fight was on Apple's terms.

    Google's tired of that. In the space of two days, they've leapfrogged Apple spectacularly: They've matched Apple's mobile OS in predictable ways, and embarrassed it in others (Flash on mobiles may not be as horrific as Apple has implied); they've invaded the living room with a dedication and vigor that makes Apple TV look like a jokey experiment; they've steamrolled the mobile ad market with as solid a platform as Apple's and, more importantly, hundreds of thousands of advertisers; they've taken massive steps into the cloud, and into streaming—the kind of stuff nerds talk about, but didn't expect to see so soon.

    1. Disintegrationnotallowed


      and embarrassed it in others (Flash on mobiles may not be as horrific as Apple has implied);

      ermm. I would like to see more evidence than the fact they have simply added it?? We know this is a marketing attack by Android and good luck to them, but i won't be counting chickens till we have had real world experiences on a number of android driven handsets

    2. Disintegrationnotallowed

      from those who have seen it

      "Flash content — especially video — can take up to a minute to load, which is more frustrating on a phone than it is on a desktop. And it sucks bandwidth. Our corporate Wi-Fi connection just didn’t seem good enough, and most Flash-heavy sites took a while to load."

      "From there, I hopped on to the Sony Pictures web site to check out the trailer for Karate Kid, a re-make starring Will Smith’s son Jaden Smith. I could watch the trailers, pinch-to-enlarge it and check out some of the trivia on the site. But Flash stumbled here, forcing me to reload the site about three times when the trailer didn’t pop up on the screen the way it was supposed to."

      "Fashion websites have been big supporters of Flash, using it to showcase videos of their latest collections and runway presentations. Chanel’s site has a video that shows its Cruise 2010 collection. Five seconds into the video, it failed to play and the spinning circle took over the site, forcing me to close it down."

      "Flash-based games sites, including Club Penguin, were accessible to the FroYo phone, in stark contrast to the iPhone (and previous versions of Android). But that’s where the fun ended. Loading the content is a frustratingly long process, and the Club Penguin site seemed to challenge the processing power of the phone, so my penguin on the phone couldn’t do much."

      Although on the positive side battery usage seems okay about 40% in a couple of hours

      1. Rattus Rattus

        Video in Flash

        "I hopped on to the Sony Pictures web site to check out the trailer for Karate Kid, a re-make starring Will Smith’s son Jaden Smith... trailer didn’t pop up on the screen"

        I think his phone was simply trying to protect him from mental trauma.

        Other than that, it sounds like Flash as per normal on a desktop PC.

  21. Joe Burmeister

    To me, XKCD seams extra relivent today

    Flash isn't something we should be relying on. One company, in case Adobe, should have power like this.

  22. John 62


    I always called it frogurt.

  23. Jonsi
    Jobs Horns

    Steve Jobs and Flash

    I'm quite happy for Apple to ship products w/out Flash - what bugs me is Jobs inventing a bunch of hypocritical dreamt up reasons why they're not including it.

    They're not doing it out of a virtuous move to standards. They're doing it whilst they've finally got some power to knock the competition (why else make such a big announcement when the latest Adobe products are about to ship), protect their revenue streams (Appstore) and promote standards they have a financial interest in. Jobs is just another Gates (but at least Gates is giving our money to charity).

    Check out this cartoon ...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021