nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 10:47:34 -0700]:
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Justin
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Who cares if an iDevice user that can't run flash wants to visit them.
> web site owners will want their site to be usable by 100 million users
> who represent over 2/3rds of mobile web traffic. in other words, the
> majority of mobile users *don't* have flash.
The majority of users aren't using mobile browsers, either
>> That doesn't matter. What matters are all the sites that they can't
>> use properly due to no Flash support. The number of sites that run Flash
>> is irrelevant, it's the number of popular sites that matters.
> again, it's not that many sites and a lot work without needing flash,
> including youtube.
Flash is more than just video.
>> >> I don't want native app games, I want the flash games that will never
>> >> be ported to native apps.
>> > such as? and how do you know they won't ever be ported? and what makes
>> Visit a lot of the flash game sites, there are thousands of these games
>> out there
> only thousands? there are tens of thousands of games at the apps store,
> but i asked specifically *which ones* will never be ported? i bet some
> of them already have been ported.
Of course there are more than only thousands, you moron.
Steambirds isn't in the istore, and it would work great with a touch
>> >> I want to be able to use restaurant websites that are flash based
>> >> Hint: That's a lot of sites.
>> > actually it isn't, and the number is dropping.
>> Prove it? I don't see that at all
> more and more web sites announce html5 support. that means they'll work
> on the iphone, no flash needed.
Just because something supports html5 it doesn't mean it doesn't have Flash
components. The two are not mutually exclusive.