Just how bad is Flash on Android?

Weird… I can’t duplicate your performance on my Droid X over 3G. I might get an occasional hiccups but the videos play without lag most of the time. As far as animations and ads and what not though, those usually aren’t smooth. But I only use Flash for the embedded videos on sites like you’ve gone to and I get plenty of success.

Flash is a nightmare…

Just to be clear, Mike, that’s Kevin doing the testing. I haven’t even dared to install Flash on my N1.

Personally, I don’t think your review is all that fair considering you got a warning saying the video is not optimized for mobile. I would typically expect slower response for anything that is not formatted for a mobile device. the compression in itself would be a lot to handle. Watching your demo, I didn’t see any redirection to a mobile-optimized site or any attempt to visit one.

So I don’t think it’s really a problem with flash per se, I think it may be more of a deal of Mobile technology is advancing faster than content providers can keep up.

Actually, I think there are cases where Flash is the right solution to use. What I find baffling, though, is Adobe’s insistance that it’s ready for prime-time on mobile, when clearly it has issues. Yes, some users report being able to get it to work perfectly. But users who I trust – and Kevin is one of them – have big issues. Clearly, Adobe is guilty of overselling its readiness for mobile.

And that’s something I find a bit odd. Why claim that your key technology works well, when it obviously doesn’t?

Stinks of fanboy jealousy. The fact that the latest version of flash is on Android is fantastic. Regardless of whether the CPU can cope with this video or that video, pretty insignificant. Dual core 1.5Ghz cpus will be in handsets by the end of the year for that. In the meantime there are hundreds of thousands of sites that use flash for a lot more than just video streams! Those don’t need beefy CPUs to render properly. As Android becomes more and more feature rich, you watch Mr Jobs drop his pants and start enabling stuff to keep up.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Dustin. Which part of “In fact, he replaced his iPhone with a Nexus One in January” did you not understand?

Hmm, that Wipeout episode’s taking a while to load. I might watch an H.264 video on my iPhone while I wait.

None of it is faked Ian. Read carefully; I wasn’t referring to video as fantastic. And FYI I like Apple products. hth.

Lot of fandroids here.

Steve Jobs was right.

You have to admit.

The hardest part about all of this is that people who want the flash experience they enjoyed during the 2000s don’t understand that the technology doesn’t work on mobile.

They don’t understand the unique challenges of mobile. They only know that flash = fast smooth video. They actually want the fast smooth video experience. Adobe / Macromedia did a great job connecting the brand to the desktop experience but are unable to deliver that on mobile.

All of this would have been alright if Adobe hadn’t bristled with such intensity when Apple made the right decision excluding the technology from iOS devices.

Sorry but, really? It’s ok for flash to suck today if better processors are coming tomorrow?

“The fact that the latest version of flash is on Android is fantastic.”

Stinks of Fandroid astroturfing. (See what I did there?)

Has anything in the history of astroturfing been astroturfed harder than Android? You can’t go anywhere on the Web without this ANDROID FTW ZOMG commentary. It’s getting old. Really old.

I’ve seen a lot of reviews of Flash 10.1 on Android, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the adjective “fantastic” used. But hey, enjoy your proprietary-plugin-driven Web, “Free and Open” Android fans. :

Missing the point.. HTML 5, which is touted as the logical and capable replacement for Flash looks great and I’ve seen and played with many a demo. However it will take years for developers, if they even choose to, to rewrite their websites.

Actually flash runs perfectly fine in my Nokia N900 linux phone – including Youtube videos (and not only mobile-optimized ones). The processor in that one is Texas Instruments OMAP3 running at 600MHz. The Qualcomm Snapdragon at 1 GHz is easily equivalent what comes to speed.

It seems to me there are factors other than the Flash itself that affect the performance. Also it seems clear that the current smartphone-grade mobile processors are easily powerful enough to run Flash.

It’s not Apple hatred & It’s not a balanced story at all, only focussing on a couple of websites with what appear to require a lot of cpu grunt. Meh. I’ve got a very old centrino laptop running 1.5ghz or something that runs flash VIDEO like that, horrible and stuttering. Other, “flash” websites / applets / games are fine…

Why would developers “choose to rewrite their websites” if they can comfortably stick with the proprietary status quo??? They wouldn’t.

Apple is the only one giving them any impetus with their Flash-free iOS devices. And I say good for them. If Google had a spine they’d get on board too. And we’d see HTML5 surge like crazy.

“Years” to get there? Yeah, only if people keep clinging to Flash.

Considering there is an option to make Flash only run on demand, I don’t see what it wrong about it not running perfectly. Just run your phone sans Flash, and if you run into something you gotta see, click to turn it on. Then the performance hit is only on content you normally wouldn’t otherwise see. Best of all worlds. Choice is nice.

Related links also show a certain tendency here.

Well yeah. The theme is “Flash really doesn’t perform reliably well on mobile-class devices”. And I do, indeed, run my phone sans Flash – and my N1 doesn’t seem to suffer because of it.

What’s an N1 Ian, intrigued?

So I can use my HTC EVO Android mobile to watch an embedded Flash video on your mobile-optimized blog site of someone reviewing how Flash video on Android works poorly on some clearly un-optimized sites.

That’s what I call “meta-irony”.

By the way, I had far more trouble using the comment system on your blog than viewing the Flash video on my mobile. Perhaps HTML/JS being ready for mobile is over-hyped too.

By the way, by the way, just like kevin at jkOnTheRun I couldn’t get abc.go.com to display Flash videos on my Evo, but then if I try the same thing on my iPad I just get a big dialog telling me to download and install a specialized ABC app (a plugin by any other name…).

..what kind of battery will be powering these might CPUs of the future? cuz right now, there isnt enough juice for multi-cores like that. in fact, battery tech is the one area thats pretty consistently dismal and hasnt been improving.

Interestingly, I’ve never had any problems with Disqus commenting on my Nexus One, so perhaps you should get a better Android phone?

Someone recognises the importance of the exponential growth (and can spot a quick buck!): http://androidandme.com/2010/08/news/angry-birds-beta-flocking-to-android-this-friday/

I tell you what’s wrong. If Apple has to insert adobe’s code in iOS, then every time jumps up some problems with flash, Apple and iOS’s users have to WAIT for adobe to solve the problem. No matter if you using flash or not. This is why a toggle or a switch to activate or deactivate flash is a non sense. Because doesn’t solve nothing.

Personally, I don’t want “a line” of adobe’s code in my iOS devices. Flash (nowadays) is great for desktop experience, but on mobile is like eating peperoni at brakfast: indigest and with no much sense.

I know: adobe understood mobile segment (iPhone, iPad, tablets, others) sooner or later will grab more and more desktop’s market share and become dominant.

Unfortunately for them (and many others) Steve Jobs understood that first. Again.

That’s related to something I’ve covered before (http://www.technovia.co.uk/2010/05/arms-experience-shows-why-steve-jobs-is-right-on-flash.html):

“If you hand your developer platform over to a third party, you’re handing the whole platform over to them. You’re effectively tying your fate to theirs, and allowing them control over your future. For some, that might be acceptable. But for Apple, it’s not.”

I love the comments by the Fandroids, especially the ones that insist that Flash is perfect on mobile (and when it isn’t, it’s somebody else’s fault, definitely not high and mighty Adobe’s). The worst part is that these people are promoting Flash for something that HTML5 actually does better: video. Except when DRM is required (I didn’t realize Fandroids loved DRM so much), there is no reason why any website can’t show their video in HTML5.

THE VIDEO ABOVE RUNS PERFECTLY FINE ON MY NEXUS PHONE, STOP WHINING ALREADY!

Richard, which part of Kevin’s video do you think is faked? Or are you saying that the fact that Flash isn’t performing on unoptimised content – which is something Adobe has consistently said will be fine – isn’t a problem?

If content creators have to optimise their Flash video content for mobile but don’t have to optimise H.264 content, what, exactly, is the advantage of Flash? If you’re going to have to re-encode anyway, why not do it to a standard format that *every* mobile device can play well?

PEOPLE WHO USE ALL CAPS RARELY HAVE ANYTHING USEFUL TO SAY.

It’s not the point. cause you can say (citing the PDF exploit, a thing that can happen on every OS and to everyone) Apple “isn’t exactly the best security themselves” and some people may say: okay.

But if, in addiction to all you’ve already to control, you put an “insecurity stuff” like flash on which you have no control (on it Adobe has control, not Apple), then what you get? You get a more difficult work to do, stuff you have not control on it, not very happy users and more probabilities to fail in something.

The lack of flash on OS devices is a win-win (Apple and users).

Have you tried the same site? I think there’s some confusion about sites that present Flash to desktop browsers but raw H.264 video to mobile browsers, and people often think they’re using Flash when they aren’t.

Or they think they’re using Flash when they’re actually using Flash Lite.

Or they are using Flash, but with mobile-optimized video, which requires effort on the part of the content providers, and could just as easily be H.264 video.

So far all the demos I’ve seen of real Flash, Flash 10.1, the real thing, have looked pretty much like this.

Maybe in another year or two…

Well that’s the thing, Richard. If you don’t think Kevin’s video is faked, then you have to admit that he’s showing off a very real problem there. And it’s not just with ABC’s site, as none of the sites he chooses perform acceptably. All, in fact, perform way worse than I’ve every seen H.264 perform (on any platform – this isn’t an “Android vs iPhone thing”).

H.264 isn’t ubiquitous. But for delivering video to lower-powered devices, it’s more reliable and less prone to weird issues than Flash video. And if content providers have to “optimise” their Flash content for mobile anyway in order for it to work properly, they might as well just convert to H.264, which works better on a wider range of mobile devices.

I’m fairly certain that “optimized for mobile” warning is talking about codec, not throughput–that is, it’s optimized for playback on a slow-CPU mobile device (I would assume meaning it can take advantage of the device’s hardware h264 decoder), not that it’s optimized for playback on mobile bandwidth. That would mean that being on wi-fi doesn’t make any difference–if it’s not optimized for mobile, it still won’t play back smoothly on a device without the raw CPU power to brute-force the video.

That said, it’s still 100% true that this defeats the entire “deploy once, play anywhere” theory of Flash, and as said, if you’ve got to re-encode your not-ready-for-mobile content anyway, why not just add an HTML5 version instead and bring several million iOS devices online as well?

Of course, the video embedded above looks like a slideshow on my old 2x1GHz desktop, since it doesn’t have hardware accelerated h264 video, either.

You clearly haven’t seen an HTC Hero running Flash have you? Unfortunately for me, I see one EVERYDAY.

I’ve not seen the HTC Nexus One personally – but I have spoken to people who have and they say Flash is extremely patchy, and never particularly smooth.

Err, do you know how many stinking iPhones/iPods/iPad there are out there? I can’t see people leaving that money on the table by not converting their sites (or at least providing that as a fallback).

And no, I don’t have an iPhone (grumble).

The video above works perfectly well on my mobile, too, and my mobile doesn’t support Flash.

That illustrates a common issue: people *think* they’re using Flash to do things they’re not using Flash to do. Like watch the video on this page.

My device is DIVX certified Glenn (http://androidandme.com/2010/08/phones/samsung/samsung-galaxy-s-becomes-the-first-android-certified-for-divx-hd/), plays and indeeds records 720p video flawlessly. Amazingly even plays my MKVs..

Every

So how about recording some video of H.264 playback from the Web against similar Flash playback? I’ve never seen side-by-side comparisons on a device that was designed to use a released version of Flash 10.1.

Um, your iPhone can play h264 just fine because it has an H264 chip(ie. hardware decoding). If you get an android device with an H264 chip in it, and a flash video encoded in H264(some of them are), then you’ll be good to go.

The above video from GigaOm serves H.264 via HTML5 to iPads. If your device has Flash it serves Flash.

This is YouTube’s recent perspective on why Flash continues to play a critical roll for them in spite of the advancements in HTML5 hosted video. It’s worth reading.
http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/flash-and-html5-tag.html

They have had YEARS to get it to work right. Android and iOS have been out for 3 years+ now. Plus they have how many years before that of working on Flash for the desktop to build on? Mobile devices can play HTML 5 video fine since back in 2007! Why should we wait on and invest in a proprietary, locked down, memory intensive, battery draining technology that was designed for mouse and keyboard input when HTML 5 video is here now and works just fine?

I don’t care if you use an iPhone or a Droid or a WebOS device from palm or what, you are better served by an open and functioning standard like HTML 5 than the proprietary and un-functional mess that is Flash. Flash had its day and like many other technologies attrophied under its own weight when it had no competition. We are better off without relying on Flash for essential video technology on the internet.

So they’re provided with video evidence of it sucking and they still want to defend it. Guys until Flash can deliver a consistent user experience you will not see it on an iPhone.

So right. Google touting Flash as being “open” was bizarre.

You don’t have to transcode. That is the stupidest part of all of this. The same ISO MPEG-4 H.264 open standard video is used in both Flash and HTML5. It plays in FlashPlayer or QuickTime Player or Safari or Chrome or IE9 or iPod or iPhone or BlackBerry or game consoles, set-top boxes, camcorders, cameras, Blu-Ray, anything. That’s the whole point of MPEG. MPEG-2 was a DVD, and MPEG-4 is an online DVD.

If you surf the Web on a PC and an iPad side-by-side, going to the same pages, in many cases you will see a Flash presentation on the PC and an HTML5 presentation on the iPad, both running the exact same H.264 video. One of the most dramatic examples is MSNBC’s show pages (e.g. Countdown or Hardball or Rachel Maddow Show) because the whole page is a Flash presentation on PC, but on iPad it is HTML5, not just the video, but the interactivity. The most recent site I saw go from Flash-only to Flash/HTML5 is Cracked.com a couple of weeks ago.

Basically, instead of your website showing a “Get Flash” message when the user doesn’t have Flash, all you do is change the HTML so that when there’s no Flash you show the same video in HTML5. It can be as little as a half hour of work and as much as maybe an afternoon. It’s less work than the whole IE/ActiveX thing caused us a few years ago.

So why do we need Flash again?

Why would we want to install FlashPlayer 5 times a year on 5 billion mobiles again?

So this matters to a user how? Its actually pretty hard to identify whether a given site uses VP6 inside flash or h.264. There are lots of forces keeping companies from switching to h.264 encoding for flash–the installed base of flash players pre-9.0 that don’t support h.264 decoding, the potential patent issues, their workflow, etc. If a given web site is still using VP6 and I might want to watch the shows on that site, doesn’t it matter that the flash player being touted won’t work on most of them? I know Hulu DOES encode it’s flash content in h.264, but oh well, you can’t watch that anyway. And even Hulu only uses h.264 for the higher bit-rate, higher quality encodes. If you just want something to watch on your phone even Hulu is using VP6 for those streams. And that’s a site that is committed to h.264 encodes.

The flash player on your mobile phone won’t play most of the videos you might want to watch. Period. That’s pretty much all anybody normal cares about.

We’ll see how all this works out. I’m impressed we’ve been able to get to 1GHz processors without blowing the battery life to hell. But as you’ve maybe noticed with modern laptops, increased CPU frequency generally means more battery suck. And battery technology ain’t improving that fast. Will we see viable 1.5GHz processors in mobile devices that people deem successful products this year, or won’t we? I’m not that certain. I think the 1GHz devices already do most of the things you’d want a mobile device to do, other than render flash, just fine, and wouldn’t want to sacrifice battery life to get a faster CPU for no particular reason. I have good gaming performance, fine web browsing, etc at 1GHz, and most of the other 1GHz phones seem to be about the same. Why should I push the CPU up just to fix Flash?

Why don’t you post a video of it running perfectly– so we can all see?

I made a video of my experience using flash on my android device: http://www.reddit.com/tb/d7z5i

My performance varies greatly from yours, evidently.

this is a video of the exception, not the rule. i have flash on my n1 and it runs great. in this case it is a matter of the video itself being too large for the phone to handle, has nothing to do with flash. same thing happens when I try to watch HD video on one of my old powerbooks, not flash’s fault my video card sucks.

Sorry, but I’m a consumer, not a hardware engineer, so I don’t *care* about the how or why, I just want to visit a website and know that it’ll load properly.

I don’t want to read an error message about some video not being optimized for mobile.

Are you saying that in order for Flash to work like Adobe claim it can, hardware manufacturers need to scrap their current products and replace them with ones that pack an “H264 chip”?

That’s a youtube video, are you certain it’s not playing via HTML5? Because it works like that on iPhone/iPad too.

Try a site you know only uses Flash, like metacafe.

Kudos to you, Brad, for picking up the challenge to show Flash actually working. Note though that this isn’t *my* experience – the video is by Kevin.

Dennis, in all honesty I’ve yet to find a web app that didn’t work to acceptable levels on my Nexus One. More pertinently, I’ve yet to find an H.264 (non-Flash) streamed video which didn’t play perfectly well.

And this really isn’t anything to do with what Apple does or does not do. As I’ve posted previously, Apple’s reasons for keeping Flash off iOS are about primarily about controlling their own destiny, something that I think Jobs made clear. The performance of Flash is something that is secondary to that.

But either way, what Apple has done/not done is kind of irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is the performance of Flash video. Note – I’m not saying Flash is a bad thing. I’m saying that, as a video container for mobile, it’s performance is not good enough.

In Kevin’s video ABC was not the only problem. All sites were.

He is using the default android browser, which DOES NOT support HTML5.

The performance of the Flash Player is not worse than when delivered with HTML5, it’s just that Flash supports a wider range of formats.

h264 needs to be encoded using the baseline profile to at all be possible to view on mobile devices with HTML5. With Flash, if it’s not baseline encoded you can still watch the video but will get a warning since the performance will suffer.
Also, Flash supports other formats like VP6 that is not supported by the GPU for hardware acceleration.
I rather have the option of accessing any content, and if I’m not happy with how a certain video performs I can always stop watching.

Videos that are baseline encoded h264 work very well in the Flash Player on my Galaxy S, and the overall Flash experience is very good.

Most Flash video is h.264, and all ARM chips used for mobile phones (used in all Androids and iPhones/iPads/iPod touches) have extensions to accelerate video-decoding. On the iPhone these are used to accelerate h.264, and I highly doubt Android isn’t doing the same thing. There is no such thing as a “h264″ chip, there are only cpu-extensions which accelerate doing stuff common in generic video-encoding or decoding. Someone only has to implement a video codec which uses these CPU-extensions

They do display a warning when the codec used is not suitable for mobiles, so you do not need to wonder.

Also, there are HTML sites that works really bad on mobile devices as well. And with HTML5 the situation is even worse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4

It’s a matter of fact is that there are differences with mobile devices and desktops/laptops, and existing web technologies can all result in applications or sites that does not work on every device. It’s up to the developer to make the effort to ensure that as many users as possible get an optimal experience. That is not harder with Flash than with other technologies, in fact it’s easier.

I watched the video in the Flash Player on my Galaxy S, and it ran really smooth despite not being optimized for mobile. And yes, it was the Flash Player that was used. I know since I have it set to “on demand”.

And HTML5 will require you to have not only h.264 baseline for mobile devices, but Theora for Firefox and preferably another h.264 version for non-mobile as well. And you still need Flash to get anywhere near acceptable accessibility.

Can you think of one major video site that serves video as HTML5 when the user has a HTML5 capable browser
that also has Flash installed?
They all default to Flash if it’s available, and that is because performance is better for the vast majority of machines and you get more functionality like captions and overlays as well as a proper fullscreen mode.
They cannot afford to be running their businesses based on fanboy agendas.

Abc app is free and awesome. You should try it. Content is smooth and nearly HD.

I guess either all major video sites that default to Flash is stupid, or your definition of what is smart is a bit out.

Currently below 40% has a browser that supports HTML5 playback using h264. Loosing more then 60% of users to please the around 1% that browses using iOS is maybe not the smartest thing to do?

So it’s NOT FULL WEB experience that you can have with mobile Flash, right? Would you consider the following false marketing then?

Adobe.com front page today:
“Motorola DROID 2 now shipping with Adobe Flash Player 10.1: See the full web on mobile”

Adobe on Demo about Motorola DROID 2 (http://bit.ly/bB19nE):
“Diana Helander of Adobe demos the full web on the new DROID 2 by Motorola running Flash Player 10.1″

Just because you do not get optimal experience with all content doesn’t mean that you do not get the “full web”.

Are you referring to the video posted here?
I don’t see content not working.
Video on ABC not loading is just stupid to blame the Flash Player for. The problem is obviously with ABC.
And for example Hulu blocking mobile devices is not a problem with the Flash Player either, but a problem with Hulu, and changing the user agent will resolve that.

With your reasoning nothing offers the full web since some servers might be down or require permissions to access.

You have any examples of Flash content that can not be accessed with Flash on Android due to issues with the Flash Player?

At least you can use the roads you want. The Flash Player on my Galaxy S runs just fine and brings me to my destinations.
Maybe your device is broken…or maybe you don’t even have a device with Flash?

Exactly.

You have a point there that not all web browsers support HTML5 with H.264. So real question is if Flash is good enough technology to be built further on or should new better technologies be used instead?

Who is not for better technology?
I like a phone that supports Flash, HTML5 and Silverlight since they all have their strengths.
Ideally I would like it based on an open standard, but if you look at HTML it’s fine for the propose it was created for, displaying text. But it just develops too slowly to keep up with more demanding tasks.

Take video codecs as an example. h.264 has become dominant the last few years, but now Google want to use WebM for YouTube since they claim it will reduce the bandwidth needed drastically.
Apple and MS will not include the codec in their browsers, and even if they did release browsers with support it will take many years before you have acceptable reach with WebM. There are still loads of users with IE6 and IE7, so without a plugin we would be stuck with h.264 probably for around a decade.
So the lifespan of a browser is longer than the lifespan of a codec, which of course makes it a useless way of delivering the technology.
Adobe has announced that they will support WebM, and more than 90% will have the updated player in less than a year.

Also both c# and Actionscript are far superior to JS, both when it comes to development and runtimes. HTML5 will be fine for some purposes, but for serious application development it’s retarded.

“Many web apps don’t work well, if at all, on touchscreen devices”

There’s something very wrong with your touchscreen device.

In what way is HTML5 better according to you?

Performance? Check some benchmarks comparing h.264 encoded video and you will notice that you will not get better performance with HTML5 compared to Flash.

Features? When it comes to features HTML5 is limited. No proper streaming, no proper fullscreen, no content protection and no overlays and captions.

Accessibility? You have fragmentation between browsers with MS, Apple and Mozilla trying to push their agendas by limiting support to different codecs. Browsers are updated slowly, meaning that many times a codec will be replaced by a more modern alternative by the time it’s accessible by enough users to be considered for serious use.

The only advantage of delivering video with HTML5 would be that it’s an open standard, but that is actually a pointless distinction as long as the codecs are not open. Instead of a plugin using proprietary technology you add the proprietary technology to the browser, and nothing is gained in the end.

A lot of people think that HTML5 will be the future for online video, but they seem to completely miss Google’s investment in WebM and the fact that the only way for them to reach a decent number of users reasonably soon is by using Flash to deliver the codec. Just like Flash enabled sites like YouTube to start with, it’s clear that it’s also a vital part of their future. HTML5 will remain a fallback for crippled devices in the foreseeable future.

Echoing so many other comments: WHO CARES?
What matters is what works, and the Flash shown in Kevin’s video is laughably bad.
It seems like a world of caveats that people not versed in ffmpeg would have a hard time grasping only because they couldn’t care less.

What do you expect. How many people has Google bought with free android phones? Multiply it by all the people who think it it is awesome that their friend got a free android phone. Android seems like a decent option from my limited first-hand experience with it, but beyond what I can see for myself by using a Nexus One for a few hours, it is really hard for me to trust the opinions anyone voices about it on line.

Unfortunately, HTML5 can’t do everything that Flash can do. And right now, Flash does many things better, especially in the mobile realm.

Was your Flash video on your Galaxy S encoded with H.264 or VP6 or Sorenson Spark?

You say Flash is default because vast majority of machines are able to play it but that’s only because most “machines” are high power desktops or laptops and not limited performance mobile devices. And mobile devices can’t play old Flash flawlessly so that old Flash content has to be re-encoded and that’s no good.

Advantage of delivering video without Flash is that people might not need to install Flash plug-in anymore on any desktop or laptop so that content providers might stop using Flash to deliver anything and all web content would be available for anyone with PCs and mobile devices for whatever and all would just work.

Flash is not good enough technology to be build up on.

I think the Apple brigade are missing the point, Flash has always been processor intensive, a Flash site would always be slower than an html site, its all about choice. If I choose to enable flash on my phone its because I want it and Apple should not be making that choice for me. Its a sad thing that the same people who champion the cause of the free internet cannot see beyond their love for their shiny iPhones and before you rile at me, just know I have an iPhone, a macBook and iMac… (and dont have a PC).

Sorry about the double comment. Disqus required me to validate my email. :-/ My fault.

Hey, thanks Ian!

————————————–
John C Bland II
http://www.johncblandii.com
http://www.johnandseason.com

My god this is grade A FUD.
Flash video on Metacafe on Desire on a suitable connection works perfectly. Same with every other flash video website I have tried so far. No choppiness, no delay. perfect. Obviously, your test conditions were flawed, not Flash.

It’s infuriating knowing people actually believe this stuff.

“Alright, I’ll try again later [1/2 second gap] Ok, it’s later”