no, it hasn't. for video, maybe, but there are still a lot of websites that are useless on mobile safari without flash just for stupid things like animated menus.
Like I said: dwindling relevance. Nobody in their right mind uses Flash for anything important. The one small exception is games, but the iPhone platform has no shortage of games that are faster, better looking, and better tailored to the platform than anything you can do in Flash.
The iPhone has supported YouTube through a native application since it launched. It does this by streaming the MPEG-4 video directly instead of using Flash as a player. Every other video site does this as well, and they don't even need a native app or any server-side weirdness. The only reason we don't do this on the desktop is inertia.
the majority of online display advertising
Which no consumer gives a flying fuck about and many actively oppose. It isn't "important". Nobody would desire Flash just so they could get Flash advertising.
Facebook and countless other uploaders
The iPhone has no user-visible filesystem for these to interface with. Even if it did, it isn't as though Flash is the only way to upload files: it just happens to be a way that skirts around browser limitations. A native application (even on the desktop, like Flickr Uploadr or iPhoto's Facebook integration) does the same thing.
I'm not trying to say that Flash is dead. Obviously it is in use all over the place. I'm just saying it's not a vital thing to have in anything new, and can cite the iPhone's success in the past few years as an example.
Nobody in their right mind uses Flash for anything important.
iPhone has, but I'd wager the vast majority of YouTube users watch videos in their browsers.
the majority of online display advertising
Advertisers are the revenue source for innumerable online sites; they like Flash so it is important.
Re: uploaders... A native application...does the same thing.
Sure, but again, I'd wager that most people use the on-site bulk uploaders.
The point is that Flash is useful and easily accomplishes things (with nearly 100% market penetration) that would be much more difficult without Flash (building a native app, trying to animate ads across browsers).
I'd wager the vast majority of YouTube users watch videos in their browsers.
Yes, but what are they actually doing? They're streaming the exact same h.264 video, except using the Flash plugin as a (buggy, inefficient) decoder.
they like Flash so it is important.
Not to users. Users are the ones who actually buy and use the devices that end up viewing the ads. No user buys a device for a better ad experience. That's nonsense.
nearly 100% market penetration
This is not going to hold true as more people browse the web on devices that lack Flash. Such devices may not be the sole or even primary way of browsing the web for some time, but in terms of total volume of web usage, it is already significant, and will only grow. It will make less and less sense to target a web platform that can't be reached every way that people use the web.
Online ads: I don't think the majority of users find that to be a problem
Uploaders: What are you going to upload that can't be done just as well with a normal file picker? I'd guess the thing is a big iPhone, not a small computer.
iPhone/iPod touch already have a YouTube client which works fine. And I'm not really going to complain too much if my browser suddenly can't show me annoying animated full-screen ads with sound...
Nobody in their right mind uses Flash for anything important
I used teamapart.com a few days ago - it's a very impressive product, built with Flash (and Flex). I've never seen anything like it that doesnt use Flash.
Just because some uses of Flash are questionable, doesn't mean that Flash has no place. Its performance issues are, of course, a consideration.
Google's uses of Flash (OFTTOMH): Gmail's GChat, Street View, Charting for Public Data, Marketing for Nexus One..
As a developer, that is sound advice. As a user, it's silly. I don't get to decide which websites use flash and which don't, and technical limitations don't dictate which sites I want to visit.
It works for me. That's why I've never been interested in adblocking software. If a site annoys me, I just don't go there any more.
That's why I've hardly ever read any of the nytimes articles that get submitted here. Because they put them behind an irritating signup wall. There's accounts you can find on google but I really can't be bothered.
It's not like there's a shortage of websites doing the same thing.
I agree - plenty of sites, why visit one that annoys you - but I will say that with advertising it is becoming less and less the case that the site actually chooses or even knows what ads are showing on their site.
