Just how bad is Flash on Android?

by Ian Betteridge on August 31, 2010

Pretty bad. In fact, if you’re thinking video, utterly unusable.

Kevin Tofel of GigaOm and JKOnTheRun is someone who isn’t a dyed in the wool iPhone or Apple fan. In fact, he replaced his iPhone with a Nexus One in January (a process that I’ve recently gone through, more of which anon). And that’s why this video over on NewTeeVee of his experience with Flash video should be required watching for anyone who thinks Flash on mobile is a reality, today.

What does this demonstrate? Simply that the idea that Apple could simply magically put Flash on the iPad (which runs a processor in the same class as the Nexus One) is fantasy. Ignoring the broader reasons for Apple wanting to keep Flash off its platform, it’s clear that Flash is simply too processor-intensive to work properly on mobile-class processors as currently specified.

Fanfoot

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.
Fanfoot

Okay, so I’ll grant you the Nexus one will be able to browse some restaurant or hotel sites that an iPhone can’t, because it supports flash. And maybe that’ll work okay. And I’d rather be able to browse the site rather than not. So that’s a good thing.

But aside from that, the main reason I’d want flash on my phone would be to play video. What else do I want it for? Flash games? Seriously? Given that most of them need a mouse pointer they aren’t going to work anyway dude. And personally I could care less about most of that. There are much better games available for both Android and iPhone than those flash games. Yes I suppose there are people who want to play Farmville or something, but really? Is that the majority? The other thing I can see coming with flash support is Flash ads, which I really don’t want, and would rather see holes in the display rather than having my whole browsing experience slowed down. I don’t think you represent the average user here.
Fanfoot

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?
Fanfoot

Again, most of the content out there in flash wrappers today is VP6, not h.264. For various reasons. Yes its moving to h.264 slowly, but its not all in h.264. Yes it would be better if it were. Perhaps even for Adobe, since maybe that’s what “optimized for mobile” means–its VP6 or VP6 at any significant bit rate. Dunno. But browse the web for reviews over the last couple of weeks. Its not just the sites shown in this video that don’t work well–ABC, FOX, CBS, Hulu, etc Enough that you wonder what sites DO work?
Anonymous

Why don’t you post a video of it running perfectly– so we can all see?
http://twitter.com/j_aroche Javier Aroche

So you’re complaining about one particular case where Flash in your Android is just too big? Thats like blaming H.264 because my netbook can’t play 1080p videos. The problem isn’t the plataform (Flash) but the content (ABC videos), those videos are just too big, even with my netbook I’ve found flash content that is just too big (Hulu) to run smooth. Not all flash runs so bad, for example ustream or vimeo players run fine on my Nexus one.
http://twitter.com/Bradart Brad Ganley

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.
Anonymous

I have Flash on my N1 and it plays flash video just fine…
Anonymous

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.
http://www.theangrydrunk.com The Angry Drunk

Good lord. Even during the OS Wars® I never saw saw this much mindless zeal over a product. If Adobe isn’t paying for this, they’re some lucky bastards.
Anonymous

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”?
http://twitter.com/dennisforbes dennisforbes

“What matters is that it just doesn’t work well.”

Many web apps don’t work well, if at all, on touchscreen devices. Many web apps are far too resource demanding for mobile processors.

The situation is virtually identical. Steve didn’t ban HTML5 “for your good”, but he could have used all of the same justifications.
Pingback: LuisRei.com » Blog Archive » Video: Flash on Android Is Shockingly Bad
http://www.facebook.com/paul.eccles1 Paul Eccles

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.
http://www.technovia.co.uk Ian Betteridge

But John, it’s far more beneficial to Adobe to simply say “yes, Flash on mobile is a work in progress. At present levels, it’s not perfect, but we’re continually working to improve it.” Given the weight of Flash video that’s already out there, and the (still) relatively low number of people who want to stream video to a mobile, it’s not like they don’t have time.
http://www.technovia.co.uk Ian Betteridge

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.
http://twitter.com/dennisforbes dennisforbes

Video “response”, or at least adding context-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb9jfdltkUU
http://www.technovia.co.uk Ian Betteridge

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.
http://twitter.com/Carniphage Carniphage

It’s obvious that content makers need to optimise their content for mobile devices.( If they care about mobile users.)
If they don’t optimise for mobile then the content isn’t going to work. Not on Flash, not on anything.

So if they do decide to optimise, the smart thing to do is drop Flash. Because dropping Flash lets them target all mobile users, not just Android 2.2.

C.
http://techcomments.tumblr.com heikkipekka

In Kevin’s video ABC was not the only problem. All sites were.
http://techcomments.tumblr.com heikkipekka

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

He is using the default android browser, which DOES NOT support HTML5.
http://twitter.com/aegisdesign Shaun Murray

Sorry Phillip but you’re mistaken. The N900 runs a full version of flash v9.4 and runs it well.

Even still, Flash Lite v3 on Symbian handsets runs most flash video codecs just fine even on pensionable CPUs. You have to remember that Flash ‘lite’ is essentially Flash v8 with some v9/v10 video codecs added. That gets you Youtube, Vimeo, sIFR flash text replacement and most Flash adverts.

So, that leaves the question of why Flash 10.1 on Android is so awful when a 400Mhz ARM9 Nokia can run rings around it.
Pingback: Just how bad is Flash on Android? - Cristian’s blog
http://www.facebook.com/leo.bergman Leo Bergman

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.
http://www.facebook.com/leo.bergman Leo Bergman

The issues are worse with HTML5. If you do not encode in baseline profile the video will not be watchable on mobile devices at all, and if you only do baseline profile desktop users will have a sub optimal experience.
And there is no video format that is accessible to the majority of users. Lot of users still have browsers without HTML5 support. And the browsers that do support HTML5 don’t all support the same codecs.

So if you use HTML5 you severely limit the number of users that can watch the content at all, and you need to have different h264 encodings as well as Theora to reach the ones that do have a browser supporting the video tag..
Anonymous

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
http://techcomments.tumblr.com heikkipekka

Users shouldn’t be wondering wheter Flash content is going to work or not. Adobe has been saying “full Flash experience on mobile”. You just have content and you watch it, read it, listen it.

But it still doesn’t work and we should all move on.
http://www.facebook.com/leo.bergman Leo Bergman

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.
http://www.google.com/profiles/simon.banyard Simon

HTML doesn’t work that way. It’s fully backwards compatible for a start and those espousing it’s ability to replace Flash are wrong. Well, sort of. The audio and video elements in HTML negate the need for plugins such as Flash in modern browsers (such as those found on smartphones). Flash as a delivery mechanism for audio and video still has legs on it so long as people use versions IE prior to 9 etc. What is replacing Flash is the combination of HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript/AJAX technologies, which are generally computationally more efficient and more accessible. As for it taking years to rewrite sites, in simplistic term all it’ll really take is changing the doctype declaration to < !doctype html>. Ironically perhaps, a fair amount Google’s output on the web, including YouTube and GMail, is already coded with HTML5.
http://www.facebook.com/leo.bergman Leo Bergman

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.
Anonymous

The video played well on my iPad as it delivered html5. Are you sure you weren’t watching in html5?
Anonymous

Abc app is free and awesome. You should try it. Content is smooth and nearly HD.
http://www.google.com/profiles/simon.banyard Simon

Erm, if I’m not mistaken the EVO is running Froyo (Android 2.2 for the uninitiated), the default browser supports HTML5. This is self evident as Flash for Android is currently only available for Froyo. And please, IF YOU ARE GOING TO SHOUT, have the decency to get your facts right…
http://www.facebook.com/leo.bergman Leo Bergman

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?
http://www.owenshepherd.net Owen Shepherd

Actually, many phones have dedicated H.264 decoding hardware. For example, phones built upon TI’s OMAP processors have an “IVA”, or Integrated Video Accelerator. This IVA is capable of decoding 720p H.264 video (Though perhaps not capable of then downscaling)
http://techcomments.tumblr.com heikkipekka

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″
http://www.mike-pulsifer.org/ WVMikeP

We need a plugin-free web. Clinging to Flash rather than adopting and improving open solutions that don’t require plugins is what we should be doing.
http://www.facebook.com/leo.bergman Leo Bergman

Just because you do not get optimal experience with all content doesn’t mean that you do not get the “full web”.
http://techcomments.tumblr.com heikkipekka

Not working is not subjective state and doesn’t mean “not optimal”.
Pingback: Android はいかにひどいか « maclalala:link
Pingback: Today Apple will demonstrate why they don’t need flash for video | Dustin's Blog
Pingback: Is your flash experience as horrible as this? - Android Forums
http://www.facebook.com/leo.bergman Leo Bergman

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?
http://techcomments.tumblr.com heikkipekka

Flash on mobile is like a broken car. Engine might start but you don’t enjoy your ride and you might never get your destination.
http://www.facebook.com/leo.bergman Leo Bergman

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?
http://techcomments.tumblr.com heikkipekka

Oh my then there is no real problem with Flash as your Galaxy S runs just fine!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1044648021 Richard Sanchez

Exactly.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1044648021 Richard Sanchez

Mr. Bergman, you make some good points (some of it goes over my head, lol). Still, my Plebeian two cents: just because Flash runs well on the Galaxy S doesn’t mean that its sub-par experience on other smartphones (as evidenced in the embedded video above) is justified. It’s like you said, Flash supports a wider range of formats; so how can Adobe expect to ubiquitously leverage the performance of Flash across all Flash-supported mobile devices? And why would I want the “full Web” if that experience is more frustrating than rewarding? I would rather use a smartphone with Flash disabled than a phone whose processor and battery is exorbitantly taxed when the plug-in is enabled. I’m not a software or hardware engineer, or even a tech hobbyist … as an end-user, I just want my smartphone to work well, not work “barely well” …
http://techcomments.tumblr.com heikkipekka

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?