Chrome brings Flash Player into the fold, trains it to kill iPads?
By Sean Hollister 
posted March 30th 2010 8:19PM
posted March 30th 2010 8:19PM
If Apple had its way, we expect that the iPad would go down in history as the device that nearly single-handedly destroyed Adobe's empire of Flash. While HTML5 has been in development for years, content providers like the Wall Street Journal, NPR, CBS and more have only begun transitioning video services to the new standard (and subsequently, away from Flash) now that it's time for Cupertino's big release. But this week, Adobe has found an ally in Google, which has just announced that the Chrome browser -- and more importantly, Chrome OS -- will not merely support but natively integrate the technology. In the short run, what this means is that the Chrome browser won't require you to download Adobe Flash Player or spend time updating it before back-to-back YouTube viewings and marathon Newgrounds sessions. In the long run, Google explains that it intends Flash to become an integral, seamless part of web design up there with HTML and Javascript -- and if we extrapolate, an integral part of its new Chrome OS as well. Pardon us for thinking out loud, but it sounds like Google's found an exclusive feature to highly tout, when it inevitably brings a Chrome OS tablet to market. [Thanks, Adam]
Only makes cents...
@n0ne
I guess Steve and Eric's hangout didn't go too well...
@Howell wut?
@n0ne
Your avatar is depressing...
@n0ne
It was a joke because Steve Jobs (who hates flash) and Eric Schmidt were recently seen having coffee together. It's supposed to be funny since their is supposedly tension between the two executives and that it must have been unleashed during their meeting to make Eric Schmidt do something like this.
@Howell
you didn't have to explain it
@n0ne
Integrating the bugginess of Flash right into Chrome?
Hmm.... so much for the speediness of my favorite browser..
Damn you Google, don't make me use Safari :(
@Wesscoast I think the speed is their main selling point and I can only see them doing this is it shaves the tiniest bit off of their page loads while bringing videos much better (perhaps little/no need for ION2 for netbooks 1080P videos?).
A while back, Google users overwhelming asked for more search results per page. Google did massive tests to make sure that their user experience wasn't sacrificed, they found the fractions of a second it took made users very dissatisfied. If they do anything to the contrary here I'd be greatly surprised.
@Wesscoast they never said you HAVE to go to flash websites. They say you have the ability to able to go to them... Better than NO FLASH...
@_@
@n0ne
The only sense it makes is that GOOGLE is interested only in itself and it's internet ADVERTISING. How is most internet advertising done, FLASH. That is Google's motivation, save the advertising. Google is fighting to keep those annoying ads that pop up in front of you whenever you try to read a page. I love my iPhone for browsing because I don't get all the FLASH JUNK Advertising. I don't mind advertising but I can't stand most FLASH ADs, they are so intrusive.
@n0ne
Is it time for monkey news?
@n0ne
Wohooo Apple-Google WAR heating up.
And guess who wins....consumers with better products (no...not Microsoft). :)
@juanvaldez +1 for a very informative post. I never knew that.
@garysturn
Well good for you then. Maybe there are some of us who would like to use flash, and for some, this was desired. I don't like the tone of your comment, as it speaks of google in an unfair manner. In my opinion, google isn't anymore evil than apple. They don't exist to hurt and annoy you, and before you call me an apple hater, I'm typing this on my iPhone. I just think that your comment about google sounded somewhat illogical.
@Wesscoast I hope u realize that since flash would be integrated straight into Chrome means that it will actualy make the browser fast due to the fact that when u download a Program sepretly to integrate with ur browser it will make u download things that r needed to run it in the browser so in other words if it's integrated right to the browser it will be specialy made for the browser
So honestly chrome with flash will probably be much faster than safari with the flash download on to it
and HTML5 won't take over flash any time soon so I think it would be much better to have chrome with built in flash that just safari with flash on top and not built in
@n0ne Not to mention it also probably means, Adobe will release a couple of their software packages for Chrome OS.
Google is anything but naive and nice, they are getting something big in return.
@garysturn
You know what is really sad. A lot of visitors to Engadget and other tech blogs have iPhones and soon iPads. Every time those users visit Engadget ads don't load and they dont get the money for the services they provide.
@garysturn
on your pc, its called adblock. opera, firefox, and i dont know about chrome all have it.
@n0ne Karl Pillockton!! :)
@daytripper
Hey dummy, try going to engadget on an iPhone... You see the ads. Try going the the iPhone/iPod version i.engadget.com there are adds there too. Try going on the iPhone app...
Maybe I got my point across... If I didn't, then you should google for Apple advertising and you will come across several articles that apple will create iAds
@n0ne
Apple should allow the Chrome browser to run on the iPad, then there would be less of a security risk and iPad users would get their Flash support. All would be good as long as it doesn't use up lots of processor cycles.
@garysturn Ya know... a lot of Google's ads AREN'T flash based... hmm... I'm sure to some extent, some flash ads get them money, but most of their ads aren't flash so... :P
@n0ne Google knows the importance of flash, and giving it away is a very unwise idea. In my opinion, If google can improve flash, then I can't think of any reason why flash should be boycott. Along with this 'chrome bundle' is the perception that google may embrace flash as well on their future devices as well: http://bit.ly/slate-from-google-possibility
@n0ne
Yup, since the vast majority of people use Flash now it's the right thing to do.
@Howell Nice. I wonder if they went Dutch on the bill.
Of course, Apple invented Adobe, FLash, HTML5, browsers, along with everything else and Steveie baby was just letting Eric know this.
@n0ne
Apple : F U Adobe, I am launching the greatest tablet ever and your slow mo' development is crippling my launch, now my tablet has no flash. WTF man. Apple wait for no man. That's it, I had enough, I gonna rally my zealots to kill you adobe. HHAHAHA suck to be you, lazy ass.
Google: Hey adobe, I heard this apple trying to spread nonsense about you and wanna kick you out of web development. Tell you what, I also developing something, it's picking up steam but not as great as Apple yet. Let's partner up and make Apple feel stupid on what he is missing.
Apple: F U Google. I was just try to pressure Adobe to get their act together. You sneaky little bastard
Google: Tee heee
@garysturn how about HTML5 ADs ?
@MarkAnderson But flash is a pain in the ass for me as a web developer.
I don't want HTML5 video to pick up because of some fanatical religious views, I want it to pick up so that it's as easy for me to include a video as it is an image. With Flash, I have to buy their product, hack a video player together, put the video into it, then muck about with endless object and property tags before I can get my video on a web-page. I don't want to upload the video somewhere else if it's already on my server, I just want to have the video on that page.
Alternatively, I can use [video src="somevideo.ogg"][/video] or [video src="somevideo.avi"][/video] and be done with it.
@The Madman, you don't have to buy anything from Adobe to create Flash. Flex SDK is free and open-source, and with it you can build whatever player you like, or use some already available, and with SWFObject JS library adding it in your HTML is easier than adding a HTML5 video tag that will be sensible to browser it uses + you get a MUCH wider audience.
@n0ne At the end of the day I'd prefer the choice than no choice at all. People seem to be getting stuck in this mindset that only one way is right, but that's not the case, the way they are describing 'right' is someone telling them it is. There are many forms of media and they all can be used appropriately and inappropriately, that's not going to go away. No corporation has the right to decide which types of media you are allowed to consume, simply because it does not suit them, especially when it comes to the internet. Trying my hardest to avoid the wrath of Goodwin's law here though!
@MosesusedaniPad Really? Why should they do such a thing? Chome for Mac is a side project for Google although the dev channel does work quite well. Flash for Mac is suffering from not enough developer attention and Apple should allow the combination of both into the market place? Yeah good luck with the logic. Just because something works great on your Windows machine does not mean that it works great on OS X or the slimmed down version of OS X that runs on the iPhone/iPad. Plus Chrome is not designed for touch screens at all.
Plus this deal with Adobe is really transparent. Yes google has a new shiny HTML5 player for YouTube but the truth is that HTML5 is not nearly as polished as Flash is and at the end of the day Flash is easier to work with. So the bottom line is that YouTube i.e. Google needs Flash. Also Chrome needs a competitive advantage when it comes to netbooks. Lets face it Flash on linux is even worst than flash on OS X. However, Google needs to make it works great hence invest money into it. And whilst flash is free to use as a plugin the only way Google can improve it is by signing a deal with Adobe ( the owner of the IP ).
@mynk
Yup, Chrome has it to.
@(Unverified) long post = rant. yawn.
@incognito I've got a text-editor and a web-browser. With video becoming so commonplace, why shouldn't it just be built into the browser?
The only real advantage to me as a lazy-ass developer is wider deployment, and with more browsers implementing HTML5 video, that's becoming less and less of a problem - at least, after Big Stupid Corporations inc. start porting their IE6 web-apps to something with more longevity (like, say... the standards, perhaps?).
@The Madman
And how do you get round the proprietary video codecs?
@MarkAnderson
If I don't want to use PNG for images, I use JPG. If I don't want to use MP4/AVI for video, I use OGG. Simple, no?
@fpad77 Will you be able to choose NOT to have flash on Chrome?
@The Madman
Which means that the product will have to have access to those alternative codes.
You do see where I'm going here don't you?
@1mc Yeah....that was creepy.
Mac OS X ships with Flash built in, and has forever.
@The Madman
i dont think YOU get to decide the industry standard for coding...
either way, companies arent going to give a shit what you think, if it makes good sense for them theyll do it, flash is an AMAZING platform and only steve jobs and his minions fail to see this
In fact, if they even slightly dislike something they out it from their products completely. Its good to see two companies working together, this mutual working should increase the usability and effectiveness of both the chrome browser and flash, whats not to like?
*waits for steve jobs response to this*
@MarkAnderson I don't think you're seeing where I'm going, though.
Say I've got an image on my computer. If I want to include it in a web-page, I don't have to worry about stuff like formats, patent infringement/licensing fees, using some API that someone's written for a proprietary plug-in or buying said proprietary plug-in's development platform and creating an appropriate application for displaying the image myself: I just type [img url="someimg.jpg"] and carry on.
I want video to be the same.
Yes, I know that right now that isn't going to happen, but it's not going to happen if we don't approach these problems and find proper, valid solutions either. I might not be able to use video/audio on my website like I can images right now, but I want to be able to in the future, and the sooner I can the better.
@HoldenMccrotch
How does that actually address anything I've said?
If this is OS based, doesn't that mean their worries won't be just connection and load times but also CPU stress? If it's built into the OS won't it use more memory?
I dunno if there is a happy balance...
@KlassiK - lolz... Pilki is hilarious. Depressing. No.
All we now need is chrome browser for iPhone with built in flash.
now were talking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@garysturn
So what are you gonna do when advertisers start making annoying pop-up ads in HTML5 for your iPhone? Are you going to complain that HTML5 is only a useless platform for advertisers?
@Kinte Kunta
Yeah, a feature that will crash your device.
I like Adobe's site, good implementation of flash and even runs well on my [runsflashlikecrap]bookpro, I could see that used in other places and it would be way better if it always ran that well. Go Google go!
@yulebellow
You saying this makes me wonder if the reason Flash sucks on Macs isn't because of Adobe being ahem "lazy" and not because Apple doesn't want to give deep enough access, but more because web designers are running around and using poor coding.
Anyone got an answer fer me?
@BigJayDogg3
As an educated guess. a mixture of the latter two.
Adobe makes money from Flash by selling the tools to make flash content. It's in their best interests to make Flash run on every possible platform. Because the more people using flash, the more attractive the technology is.
Look at Silverlight. A few places tried it, and most have dropped it and gone back to flash. Not enough customer interest.
Even my Nokia N800 has Flash.Slow, but it's there. My Linux boxes run flash very well. So well, my 1.8 Ghz think pad with 1 gig memory is easily able to do full screen Youtube video. It maxes out the processor, but this is a known thing with Flash video.
The anti flash bile has just started since the iPhone and touch came out, which don't have the power to run Flash. But rather than admit an imperfection.. Apple are not "unable to offer a worthwhile flash implementation", they "reject flash". In the same way I reject the ability to levitate.
Flash videos will not play smoothly on low powered processors (in comparison to a laptop or desktop). And no right thinking person really expects them to. It's that simple.
The Flash instability on OSX, I have no idea of. It's smooth as silk on my Linux boxes, and on my Windows box. Perhaps some low level Apple stuff interferes with Flash, perhaps Apple have not allowed low level calls, but why worry about a minority platform, when the owners don't want to cooperate?