Flash vs HTML5 vs Adobe vs Apple

Disclaimer: I've written this post a few days weeks ago when I was a bit pissed, so it has some ranting-ness in it. I do have a soft side for Flash, but, as I said before – technologies never cry, and I will use whatever is the best for the job.

The last buzz about "Flash is dead" really came out of proposition. All of these blind followers, blood-thirsty, warmongers that never seen an HTML tag or know what each these technologies can do, worshiping their new king HTML5, and are just shouting "we conquer video", "kill kill"…

The fact that the colorful-kindle /slash/ enlarged-and-disabled-iPhone doesn't have Flash, is important, but the reactions are completely exaggerated. I think Adobe should have stayed nonchalant about it which could might have lowered the flames. Anyhow, it's easier to say in retrospect.

(Flash) Power to the people:

If you look at the short history. Flash enabled utterly amazing things on the web in times when static-ness and ugliness ruled. The problem is that it was too easy to create. All of a sudden un-capable people could have created "amazing" things. The fact that Flash could be abused so easily is part of what make some people hate it.

You can expect for HTML5 to be abused if it'll be as accessible as Flash. That means, if tools like the Flash IDE and others will enable publishing to HTML5. Than again you can expect it to abuse either way.

RT@iainlobb"Flash developers of the world: unite and make terrible HTML5 banner ads that grind CPUs and crash, just to show that the grass isn't greener"

The fact that things can be done differently doesn't necessary mean it will. Most of what Flash can do, can be done long ago using Javascript and HTML (old buzzwords omitted). Actually Flash and Javascript developers can relatively easy switch, since the languages were almost the same on the older versions of Actionscript. Even the glitches were copied from JS. And anyway the main thing that matter is thinking interactively, like a Flasher do. With HTML5, the capabilities of the two technologies are even closer. But, the challenges of developing complex Javascript application are sill far greater, It's still  the same old language, more error prone and more difficult to architect. I don't see how an online game developer, for example, will want to develop her games using HTML5. In fact I've yet seen a decent, non experimental, online game written in Javascript.

To think that all of a sudden Flash will disappear, is nonsense.

RT @leebrimelow"You all better head immediately over to the FWA and check out your favorite Flash work. It may all be converted to HTML 5 by the morning."

Even if we declare Flash as dead today, it'll be a very lengthy process measured in years at best. And since, yet again, Flash isn't dead yet. It has all this time to reinvent itself, Adobe should use this time wisely.

If you tell me you don't use Flash, you're basically telling me that you have never seen a video or played a game online?!
How about a nice colorful animation, or maybe neatly looking fonts done in sIFR, than you must install Flash and start experiencing the web.

Apple and the sealed garden:

There is something annoying about Apple arrogance, but, I have to say that what almost killed Apple in the past, is what making it so successful right now. More than 20 years ago when apple wanted to control everything on her PC (yeah right it's called Mac) most users were savvy users who wanted full power. Usability, reliability and all of these great things Apple invented weren't as important. Today is the grandpa era where consistent quality is a key.

Steve Jobs is so convincing that I almost believed him that he disallow Flash on the iPad to protect grandpa from a crashed browser – but I don't. No one will deny that Flash has some issues, but it's an integral part of the current web and wouldn't be as such if it was just causing the browser to crash. Click-to-active could have been used to solve all of the real and unreal Flash issues.

Robert N. Lee"If somebody wants you to give up what you've got now in exchange for the promise of something way, way better later, you're being screwed and not in a good way. This is pretty basic."

Flash on the iPhone, for example, would enable full VOIP applications to run from the web-browser (i.e. ribbit). Google voice iPhone application , could have leverage it instead of just allowing cheap callbacks. Allowing this kind of freedom is unthinkable for Apple.

But Apple might be loosing it, again they want too much. Apple moved from making computers for a very small niche market of mainly tree huggers. To a very powerful and successful company reinventing the smart phone market completely. Again it might blow in her face, Google might come and bite you with her don't be evil bullshit 😉

BTW, grandpa don't want multitasking either, thumbs-up for that as well, Apple (no pun intended).

Adobe is evil too:

I still remember how many many years ago Adobe asked you to snitch on your friends that uses pirated software, and by doing so, to become Robin Hood. Yeah you heard it, this was their fight on pirated software. It's OK to fight piracy but, how is that comply with the original story?! After reading the article about the old management I can see where it might came from.

RT@aral: "Remember that Adobe was on the edge of irrelevancy on the web and non-existent in mobile when they bought Macromedia."

The question, "should we support Adobe and her proprietary Flash instead of the open standards?", is somewhat misleading. Adobe is a big girl she should take care of her own. The question is – can they really make it? can they really reinvent Flash and the web yet again?

The idea that everything that is open is immediately good, is also misleading. There're a lot of financial interests in openness. Many companies base their business model over open-source and openness. Preaching for open standards doesn't immediately make you a saint.

Adobe might be an heavy/old corp, after our hard earn money. But, I can tell you, it does seems like they do have some nice, talented and community aware people when it comes to Flash. And compared to Apple, Adobe is like the Shangri-La of openness.

The last  bash against Flash might help to push Adobe to polish the player, if Adobe can afford putting even more resource on it. Either way it won't be on the iStuff.

Yeah, but, HTML 5 is a standard and not a proprietary black box like Flash:

We all know users don't care about the format, they just want the experience. Believe it or not, developers don't care much either, they just want the power to get the best result, in our case power is IDE and runtime. The pain of delivering a truly cross-browser HTML is not something to be desired. Flash is still the best way to deliver rich interactive ubiquity.

And besides, HTML 5 may be a standard, but you'll still be running it in a proprietary runtime, the browser.

The browser wasn't chosen to be the ultimate way to deliver new and cool applications because of it's wonderful capabilities. It became as such because it's the lowest common denominator. Maybe it's time for a better lowest common, Flash was a step in the right direction, maybe we'll be better with something more powerful like Steam. Actually the browser was also "chosen" because it's very easy to create content for it.

For the developers, I don't think it really matter which technology to use. All these idiots developers who couldn't handle Flash and are now gloating and think they will be able to easily create beautiful interactive content – all will be disappointed. (you know who you are, yeah I meant you personally 😉 )

Thing are prone to change relatively quickly in our times. The only fact that I can squeeze out of this, is that Flash is still the prominent force of interactive-ness on the web and will remain as such in the foreseeable future for sure.