Comments on: Flash’s Decline on Lifehacker, from 2006 to 2010

By: Brandon C

Brandon C — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:46:18 +0000

I would not mind the adoption of Silverlight to replace Flash. HTML 5 is segmented, and unless that changes we are stuck with the crap that is flash. Firefox supports vorbis, Chrome supports h.264…

Whatever happened to using your native video player? People got tired of installling Real Player or Quicktime? That is certainly quite valid, as both programs suck on Windows.

I suggest an effort be made to use operating system’s main video player. Windows 7 and OSX both support .mov natively (I believe in h.264). Embed Quicktime and Windows Media Player!

By: Hallx

Hallx — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:57:57 +0000

Lifehacker visitors without Flash installed enabled

It is interesting. I guess that we all wish to get rid of adobe’s security problems ridden product and get on with HTML5 as soon as possible.

As far as I am concerned, I am from the minuscule group of netizens who practice ‘default off’ for javascript, cookies and plug-ins. It is the policy Steve Gibbson of grc.com and ‘security now’ advocates. I only turn them on, when needed, for the trusted websites. It requires some training for the web browser, just like a normal firewall.

So I guess I am part of this 6% who visits smarterware and lifehacker without flash enabled.

By: WaltFrench

WaltFrench — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:06:03 +0000

“…about 16% of Smarterware visitors don’t have Flash enabled either.”

Interesting to know how you count those of us who have Click2Flash, who mostly prefer to have it off for performance and security, but can invoke on demand. … and to know what fraction of your total page hits come thru the mobile sites.

My personal guess is that this issue resolves with either Adobe announcing that the Flash development tools will optionally create HTML5 format Real Soon Now, or with Apple lobbing a stink bomb at ‘em with a cheap cross-platform development tool that saves them the effort. Or both.

By: oldsage

oldsage — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:34:55 +0000

With the new WebOS from Palm I have been able to go to sites from their non-mobile pages. That might also cause a mis-read in the data since it won’t be until February that we get Flash for our phones.

By: bump

bump — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:45:16 +0000

This is interesting information, but I don’t think we should be using it to draw too many conclusions. Is the user base of the four sites listed representative of anything beyond the very most technical web users? Do any of the sites have any content in Flash today?

I would love to see similar analytics information from a larger web site that has some Flash content. Say, New York Times or CNN.

By: Mark Williamson

Mark Williamson — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:38:08 +0000

I am so torn, do I support 94% of my customers? Or do I let the 6% with either a choice that they made to not have flash or a choice that was made for them by their device supplier dictate how my site might work?

Me I am going what the overwhleming majority have, if that will make me a buck.

Gruber et al anti flash campagin is just the shouting at the moon so popular on the internet. Intersting but pointless

By: esandover

esandover — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:08:43 +0000

Very interesting, thank you for the analysis. I can’t help but point out that the graph is slightly misleading. As mentioned in the text, the increase from 2006 to 2009 is a factor of 3, while the graph makes it look like a factor of 10. That’s because the Y-axis starts at 2 instead of 0.

By: Gina Trapani

Gina Trapani — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:52:56 +0000

@Mike: Valid point re: visits vs visitors, will correct.

@All: Of course the decline in Flash usage in general coincides with the rise of a popular device that doesn’t come with Flash installed.

But, an important word about these numbers: they don’t include most of the iPhone/iPod touch traffic. In the Google Analytics account I’m checking, only 0.2% of Lifehacker’s traffic comes from Safari on the iPhone or iPod. (A partner created Lifehacker’s mobile site, so the iPhone are miniscule because only the ones where the user explicitly asks to be taken to the full site were counted.)

By: mikeindustries.com/

mikeindustries.com/ — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:26:34 +0000

Not to split hairs here, but 39 million visits does not equal 39 million visitors. Generally not even close.

Still impressive numbers though. Keep on keepin’ on!

By: Andreas Rønning

Andreas Rønning — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:20:33 +0000

What an embarassing post. Holy hell. I guess it just HAPPENS that the launch and rise of the iPhone/itouch coincides with the decline in flash-enabled visitors.