Oh, *I* can hack it. I've got the last supported version of Flash up in the Dolphin browser on my device. But the install process is not something you can expect Fred and Ethyl Mertz to do. To them, it just doesn't work. Still. And personally, I'm unwilling to hack a solution on a client's or family member's device, try to explain how to use it and then support it afterwards. That seems to be a good way to get buried in a bunch of hacks you'll have to support forever.
But whose fault is that? Put the blame where it lies, Steve jobs trying to push his appstore crapstore lock in. I have flash on my fricking THREE YEAR OLD single core cellphone and ya know what? plays great. try HTML V5 with H.264 on anything less than a dual core and see what you get,even with hardware acceleration its a fricking pig.
So call a spade a spade, the killing of flash on mobile didn't have a damned thing to do with compatibility, or battery life, it had to do with Steve jobs making damned sure you weren't getting shit on that iPad without giving him 30%.
I agree with all of that, and for a long while it was the primary reason I recommended Android devices rather than the ipad. Because lots of websites don't work on the ipad. It was a compelling argument.
But then, Adobe for whatever frakking reason decided to cease support of flash on Android, and new Android devices started shipping without flash. My wife was really pissed when she got her Kindle HD and it wouldn't play video on any of her favorite sites. She nearly returned the device. (I think she should have.) I know, everything was supposed to switch to html 5 or some damned thing by now, but it's been over three years with almost no progress.
I don't care if it's html 5 or some protocol not yet invented, or if Adobe brings Flash back to mobile, or whatever. It just HAS TO WORK. Tablets will be toys to many consumers until then.
That the mega-rich have mega-toys seems as good an explanation as any.
The guy must have just broke out of a block of ice and still thinks it's 1978. On the plus side, he missed Jersey Shore and the Kardashians.
The one possible exception might be the users of mobile devices for which any web site that uses flash (still a whole lot of 'em) doesn't work. (I know, sometimes you can make it work on some devices, but mom and pop won't be able to figure it out.) I personally am not a tablet user, but I support them, and the inability to use flash is probably users' number one complaint. They may not know that's the problem, to them the website doesn't work. This is probably the primary killer of the tablet experience, and website builders need to be encouraged to fix it quickly.
> And who wants to eat in a crowd of nerds.
Not even other nerds.
Everyone should have a dream.
's a good point, although I can see the value in introducing new functionality quickly, especially support for new standards and codecs.
> I can tell from your requirements that you really don't do anything useful with your browser except read news websites.
But seriously, what's wrong with using a browser primarily to read news websites? How many cat videos can you watch anyway?
So, basically, what you're looking for is Lynx with images. Interesting idea. I bet it'd render really fast.
C'mon, realistically, there is a rate of releases that's too slow, (critical bugs and security holes never get fixed) and a rate of releases that's too fast (add-ons can't keep up). I don't have an opinion on where the sweet spot might be, but I think it's a valid discussion.
Ok, so it's highly likely this will be followed by a wooshing sound...
I'm all for fast upgrades, personally, but to Fluffy's point, it's not the straight line average clear back to Firebird 1.0 that's important, but the rate of change right now. Unless you'd like to argue that the rate of update release has not increased?
Moreover, comparing to a different software package (even another browser) is problematic because it depends on what the design team calls an update.
Maybe it's *supposed* to look natural.
Hmm,- what if you had a large enough concentration of water (and other stuff, like rocks) that it remained liquid under its own gravity, hence, no steam?
I think that's called a planet.
One could look at it this way -- maybe there are billions of planets in the goldilocks zone, with liquid water, and no life whatsoever. This could be good news, in a way. The less good news is that whatever microbes, plants, animals, we need we'll have to take with us or do without.