Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by scarface74 1511 days ago
You mean the one that could barely run on 1Ghz phones with 1GB of RAM that the company behind it said they could have gotten it to run on a 128MB RAM first gen iPhone with a 400Mhz processor if Apple had allowed them?
1 comments

I'd like to see how a web app of similar complexity would run on the same hardware. For all that people remember Flash being slow, remember the era of hardware it was running on.
By the time the iPhone was introduced, PC hardware was well into the GHz era with multiple GBs of RAM. The phone was much more constrained and didn’t have disk swapping.
And yet we didn’t have very complicated web apps (that didn’t use Flash). I’d like to see Slack on a 2008 PC.

Meanwhile, the Wii’s web browser supported Flash, and the Wii is a lot less powerful than an iPhone.

In that case why were the minimum requirements for Flash for Android when it did come out in 2010 and 1GB of RAM and a 1Ghz processor and then it barely ran, ate up battery life, and was soon discontinued?

The first iPhone that came out with those spec’s was in 2011.

I think it’s a combination of:

- Android itself really sucked at this point in time.

- Android and iOS in 2010 couldn’t run complex web apps either without chugging. It really had to be native code to perform well.

So doesn’t that kind of tell you the answer to how Adobe was full of it when they complained that they could have ported Flash to the 1st gen iPhone if it weren’t for Apple blocking them? The fact that they couldn’t get it working well on phone hardware four years newer, over twice as fast, with 4 times as much memory with larger batteries?

Cross platform frameworks like the initial poster alluded to always suck compared to native purpose built frameworks.

We see that today with Electron - a battery killing, memory inefficient, platform.