The battery argument is just silly. Playing HD movies on a phone will suck battery faster but we don't remove the user's ability to do that.

As for the others, I use Flash frequently on my phone and none of them have occurred for me in the last year or so. I have Flash set to load on demand. It's not about Flash being the future (it's not), or even continued development in it. It's about access to existing content here and now and for some users that is a continued need.

Edit: One quick edit since HN doesn't seem to want to let me reply to the below. I think the crux of it is that it removes the option to access content... key word option. If it's not the default, etc, that's fine... but you're placing the disadvantages of Flash over my ability to get to content I feel is important. The "no Flash for you" argument hinges on saying "our opinion that Flash is bad is more important than your opinion that you want to see the content you desire, even if it's not available in other formats". And for the users like myself that like to retain that option, we feel very strongly the other way.

> The battery argument is just silly. Playing HD movies on a phone will suck battery faster but we don't remove the user's ability to do that.

If you could watch HD movies in a different way that didn't use as much battery, we would. Much of the stuff Flash does doesn't need to suck down the battery life of a phone if done in HTML5.

I agree, most of the arguments from individuals I've seen against Flash are simply, "I don't like it therefore I want to stop others from using it".

I find it interesting that one of the leading arguments against Flash is that it's a proprietary plugin that is not "open". So clearly the solution to this is to close off the option of using it, doesn't seem like a very "open" attitude. I thought it was about choice but I guess it was wrong.

> So clearly the solution to this is to close off the option of using it

Apple did not secretly turn off a global flag "allowFlash = NO;" - they did not put work into supporting it. These are completely different things.

If you are referring to them not allowing the plugin to work inside their browser for iOS then I agree, it is different. I have no problem with that choice that they made, it's their system. But, it was possible to build apps for iOS that used Flash development tools and Apple directly put a stop to it. Therefore, they did put some work into that aspect even though all it amounted to was changing the EULA and banning apps from the app store. In my opinion that was an effort to prevent development tools they did not control from entering their market; that's not an "open" attitude.

But, anyway, I wasn't referring to Apple in my comment. I was referring to individuals who present the argument I described; people who are all for "open" as long as it involves software they want you to use.

disagree. flash is often used for other content that may equally suck battery just as badly. Sometimes when I visit techcrunch on my laptop, one of the badly written flash ads causes my processor fan to crank on... when I close the tab the problem goes away. How does one explain that?

and when that becomes an html5 ad in the future, it will do the same or worse

The problem is I watch the movies when I want to watch them. Flash is embedded in random. You can always have click-to-flash solutions but those are usually buggy and there are other solid arguments in the list.

Flash does not use any battery power at all, except when you choose to use a flash based application.

The stock Android browser has the option to load plugins on demand. That is: no flash application is loaded within the browser until you click on the application to enable it. The same is true for memory usage or bugs.

I don't think there are any advantages a browser without flash has over one that supports it.

A great many webpages have Flash adverts, so if you're browsing news sites, etc, normal sites that people do browse, you will probably end up being served Flash and so your battery will drain.

Again: not a single one of these adverts will load when you visit your website. You will see grey boxes with an icon on Android, similar to what you see on iOS. There is no flash running that could drain battery.

On-demand flash support means that you can touch one of these grey boxes, and only then will flash load and execute the application.

Only if you go out of your way to load the Flash advertisements.

These are all current arguments against HTML animations as well as Flash.

HTML also supports a 'mouseover' element, just as Flash does, so I don't consider that to be a strong argument.

Let's not forget the security hole of the week.

Then I guess we should stop using a good chunk of internet capable software, such as browsers.

Wrong. We should limit the number of attack vectors as much as possible. Flash has a horrific security track record. Firefox and Chrome are pretty solid.

Funny, almost all of my software that connects to the internet gets security updates. Granted the browsers may be more solid on security than Flash is, but still, reducing attack vectors does include security updates.

Poor usability? What does that even mean in this context?

Flash allow you to create any kind of interface and experience you want.

"Flash allow you to create any kind of interface and experience you want."

Exactly, and that's the problem. It means that it behaves the way the author wants it to, ignoring the users preferences. That is poor usability. I have lots of small annoyances with Flash, take for example the inability to auto-scroll across it (at least in Firefox on OS X). This would not be the case with normal content.

So does HTML+CSS+JS

I still have a hard time seeing the point here

With Flash, the user or the developer has no choice if scroll and keyboard shortcuts break. With JS+HTML+CSS, the user has a choice to force the developer to fix their code (and a developer to not write code which breaks browser stuff).

How exactly does a user "force" a developer to fix their code when they use HS+HTML+CSS?

Answering both ThomPete and talmand here:

In Flash, browser shortcuts like ^L are always broken and you have no choice about that, because that's the way Flash is designed. If a similar thing happens in a non-Flash environment, it's because the developer designed it so.

If many users complain to the developer about stuff being broken, it has to count for something.

Again, how do they "force" developers to fix their code? Asking nicely is one thing but forcing is another. You implied that the user has more control over the developer in a JS+HTML+CSS environment over Flash. Plus, if some commonly used commands are broken in Flash then it's broken in all of them which doesn't mean broken; it means unsupported, there's a difference.

Not enough to claim poor usability (which is btw, have nothing to do with)

Care to elaborate? Don't think I understand you point.