When I wrote my first article on the Apple & Adobe feud, I planned to give my thoughts and move on to the next topic, but this morning when I read Steve Jobs public memo explaining his position against Flash, I felt the need to say something. If you haven’t read the memo, please do so by going here – Thoughts On Flash
First let me say, that Steve makes some good points, but if you are objective you quickly realize his memo is more about shaping public opinion than being truthful. An in-depth look at Steve’s points shows that while many are based on truths they are not entirely accurate, (which IMO are often the most dangerous kinds of truths).
First, there’s “Open”.
Yes Flash is closed and proprietary, but Apple isn’t telling the whole truth when they say they want to embrace open technologies as an alternative. Yes HTML5, CSS and javascript are all open technologies but Steve knows full well these technologies are not fully defined, fully agreed upon or fully adopted yet. His championing of H.264 for video is evidence that he is not really trying to champion open technologies, since H.264 is not an open technology. In fact, with Adobe’s Open Screen Project (removal of licensing fees and opening of data protocols for Flash) H.264 and Flash could almost be considered equally open technologies. In fact, I’m sure he still wants people to download and install the Quicktime plug-in… doesn’t he?
Second, there’s the “full web”.
The iPhone, iPod and iPad cannot view the full web, period. Steve has done his best here to make it sound otherwise, but there really is no intelligent argument that can be made here. In the case of video on the web, Steve suggests we leave the internet and launch a separate app to view YouTube content and recommends H.264 as an alternative (even though it is not open source) as a solution to all our internet video problems. I wonder which internet video player is best positioned to handle H.264 video content? I also wonder what market forces drove such high adoption of Flash as the video standard on the internet? Remember… Windows Media Player, Quicktime and Real Player have all been around for many many years and H.264 has been around for several years as well, showing that when given a choice developers and users have chosen Flash for video delivery. In the case of games, again Steve asks us to leave the internet (open source) and the games we love and instead play them as apps (closed and proprietary) on Apple’s iDevices. Next comes the most important aspect of the “full web” argument, which Steve purposely avoids. Flash is used for a lot more than just video and games, and to see this you only need to realize that over 33% of all websites utilize Flash. Steve provided an impressive list of websites that no longer need Flash for video, but the list of sites that utilize Flash for more than video is much larger and more impressive. Here are just a small handful… (Nike, Adidas, NASA, Chevrolet, Ford, Volkswagen, Audi, Disney, Hulu, Major League Baseball, National Hockey League, ATP – Association of Tennis Professionals, Prada, Gucci, Quiksilver, SONY, CNN, Barbie, McDonalds, Burger King, Starbucks, Funny Or Die, NBC, ABC, Comedy Central, Iron Man 2, & Avatar).
Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.
Here I think Steve makes some good points, but also provides some misleading information. In regards to security, Steve points to a report from Symantec in 2009. Anyone paying attention knows that Symantec backed off that original claim – Symantec backs off claim, says current Flash Player safe from attack. For a smile, it is also interesting to note that Symantec publishes their regular ‘Threat Report’ in Flash – Internet Security Threat Report XIV | Symantec. When it comes to performance, I do think Steve has a somewhat legitimate gripe. Flash performance has been lacking and IMO Adobe did not shift their attention to performance early enough. This is now hurting them on mobile platforms where performance is key. Even so, it appears they have heard the call and have redoubled their efforts to play catch up. Flash Player 10.1 provides enormous performance gains and many of their initiatives now seem focused on performance.
In regards to Flash crashing the Mac, this certainly is true, but not for the reasons Steve is telling everyone. As the web continues to mature, websites are becoming more and more powerful. In fact, many people believe web based applications will replace desktop applications. Flash allows developers to create applications that are very powerful (similar to desktop apps), and for that reason Flash content is able to crash your browser just like a desktop application can crash your computer. No matter what technology you use, when that technology enables developers to do more powerful and more complex things you will run the risk of causing crashes, whether it is Flash, AJAX, JAVA or any other technology. The answer to this problem, is not to eliminate powerful tools from the web, but instead to leverage a solution Apple & Microsoft have already used on the desktop. Sand box each application so it is no longer able to crash the operating system. Google has already done this with Chrome, sand boxing each browser tab so a web page can not crash the whole browser. You can be sure that the next major revision of every browser will include the same functionality.
Fourth, there’s battery life.
Again, Steve makes an excellent point, but purposely gives misleading information. Steve is correct to point out that hardware video decoding is far more efficient and that most platforms are configured for H.264 hardware decoding. Where he is misleading is when he says, “Flash has recently added support for H.264”. Adobe added this support back in 2007, and it certainly has been around long enough for the new mobile iDevices from Apple.
Fifth, there’s Touch.
Again, an excellent point mixed with purposely misleading information. He says, “Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not touch screens with fingers”. This is true of ALL internet technologies, including HTML5, CSS and javascript. No matter what technology a developer uses they will have to be careful when relying on “rollovers” if they want their content to be compatible with touch devices.
Sixth, the most important reason.
Steve is right, if everyone used the same tools and abided by the same rules, applications would be more stable, more intuitive, faster and probably more efficient to create. I agree, Apple’s ability to control every aspect of a product has lead to some really revolutionary and amazing products. But when those tight controls are pushed beyond Apple’s borders to the greater development community, problems are inevitable. Apple is able to push these tight controls on developers now because of the large amount of money that can be made developing for Apple’s iDevices, but these tight controls also mean lack of choice, lack of freedom and lack of innovation. Apple would never apply these same rules to Mac OS X application development, because developers would simply stop developing for the Mac and move to Windows.
Conslusions.
I love Apple, and I have supported them since their early days, but if you’re not drinking the Cupertino Kool Aid, it’s easy to see Steve is not being 100% honest about his objections to Flash. I think it is more likely the case that Apple sees Flash as a strategic enemy to many of their objectives. Apple wants to see iTunes/Quicktime become the standard for video on the internet. Apple doesn’t want Flash as a competing development platform, where you can develop an app once and deliver it to every mobile phone… if you could do that then every phone would have 100,000 apps and a big reason to buy the iPhone would go away.
The future of the internet is being decided now, and Apple is doing their best to take control of it. Mobile devices and internet connected devices are on the rise, and Apple is very intelligently taking control. Apple is touting open standards, but pushing for closed platforms with truly unprecedented controls over developers. Be careful! Liberty is usually lost in just such ways… with people cheering for it!
Bill Mackin
Fatmonk
/ April 29, 2010Bill – Flash is an Excellent product. There is no other tool can come close in many years.
Because Adobe have been able to control the development and quality.
Do you think Apple mistrust Adobe when it come to upgrade for the Mac( Steve has pointed out that Mac is about 50% of CS income and delay release ) ?
Bill Mackin
/ April 29, 2010Here are a few interesting articles on this continuing feud between Apple & Adobe.
Wall Street Journal – Video Interview of Adobe CEO’s Response
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/29/live-blogging-the-journals-interview-with-adobe-ceo/?mod=yahoo_hs
John Stewart of The Daily Show
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes
The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs : We are removing Flash support from OS X
http://www.fakesteve.net/2010/04/we-are-removing-flash-support-from-os-x.html
A Dissection of Apple’s Essay Against Flash
http://blog.gonchuki.com/archives/html5-vs-flash-take-2-what-steve-jobs-doesnt-want-you-to-know/
An Article Attempting To Correct The Lies In Apple’s Essay
http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correcting-the-lies.html
HTML5 Coming summer 2022
http://theiphonefever.blogspot.com/2010/04/5-reasons-flash-is-here-to-stay.html
HTML5 Web Experience On The iPad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4&feature=player_embedded
Tim Noah
/ April 30, 2010A thoroughly good read and balanced repsonse to Steve Job’s thoughts on Flash. Will definately share this with my colleagues.
KingFlasher
/ April 30, 2010Perfect rebuttal, Bill!
Except perhaps for your solution to the performance on the Mac. Jobs doesn’t know a darn thing about programing, but I’m sure he relied on good engineers when he blamed it on Adobe’s laziness in not adopting Cocoa. I do both Flash and Cocoa, and I must say I have no idea why this would be true. Now that Flash uses Cocoa, he’s cornered.
SharkTime
/ April 30, 2010Very good post.
I agree with Bill: “.. Steve is not being 100% honest ..”.
It must be something more behind these 6 reasons.
But this 6 are important and Steve is right that this is enough.
Apple cares for their income/future. Their decision to not implement Flash is reasonable.
But we – consumers – want all in our pocket. Maybe there is a place for another player on mobile market. The battle continues.
Lee
/ April 30, 2010Is it surprising that a company would issue information to attempt to modify opinions and that such information would have spin in it? All companies including Adobe do this. The trick is to try out what is being said to determine which parts of both messages are true if any.
Do I like the HTML 5, CSS 3, triumverate? Yes I do. Why?
1. It is simple. I find the animation portions easier to use than anything similar I have ever tried. The database access is somewhat arcane for most people because it is asynchronous but I have written a wrapper so I don’t have to deal with it again but writing personal tools like this have been done by developers since development began.
2. I can use any IDE I want. I don’t have to pay for an IDE and I don’t have to use an IDE at all if I don’t want too (I’m not saying that that would be wise).
3. I like learning and using new things.
4. I do a lot of smartphone work and the browsers and embed-able web views of these devices all support the triumvirate. That makes my work easy. I can write it once and it works across devices.
5. I don’t have any legacy Flash I have to support.
I’ve been in the industry a long time. I saw Flash arrive and I’m sure I’ll see it go. That is the way of things in this industry. This is why I don’t want to put all my eggs, or ego, into one basket. I’m embracing the triumvirate rather than fighting it because it is good to have a broad knowledge of industry matters. I’ve seen way too many people lock themselves into one language or technology and then be forced out of the industry because they became stale.
My advice? If you are a Flash developer learn the triumvirate. It isn’t going away and you may need to know it to move to your next job. After all… each piece of knowledge you gain is worth something.
Richard Hess
/ April 30, 2010Excellent response. The “Reality Distortion Field” is running stronger than ever…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field
Tink
/ May 1, 2010Nice write up.
” The answer to this problem, is not to eliminate powerful tools from the web, but instead to leverage a solution Apple & Microsoft have already used on the desktop. Sand box each application so it is no longer able to crash the operating system.”
I’ve been an Mac user for many years and Flash has NEVER crashed the OS.
Flash does crash the browser, although its extremely rare that this happens when viewing a single instance of the Flash Plater (i.e. i really can’t remember a time that this happened).
Safari will crash when I view sites such a MySpace. Whether this is down to Flash of not I don’t know but I generally blame Flash. These web pages usually have 15+ instances of the Flash Player running what’s most probably badly coded apps each pushing the player. I suspect that if these 15 instances were replaced with badly coded HTML5 and JS all knocked out fast and coded badly the page would have the same issues (I say suspect as I have no way of testing this as HTML5 and JS is nowhere near capable of replacing this stuff).
So to clarify I’ve NEVER ever has Flash crash OS X, and although it does in some cases crash the browser, this only happens on sites running multiple (and I mean many) instances of the player, each app/widget being free or cheap and therefore I suspect bad quality.
shaun
/ May 1, 2010Bill- Thanks for this insightful critique. But regarding H.264, I think you might have misinterpreted Steve’s stance. Since H.264 is an open standard, people can develop using that standard, x264 being a prime example. Therefore users can choose the player/software of their choice that meets their specific requirements (power, efficiency, platform, etc)
Bill Mackin
/ May 1, 2010Shaun,
Thanks for the comment. You’re right H.264 is an open standard but many people also forget that the SWF file format is also an open standard. There are a handful of open source players out there and a whole host of projects that allow developers to compile from different languages into Flash Player compatible binary format. My point was that each of these technologies are (arguably) equally open, and when Steve points to H.264 as an example of an open source alternative to Flash, it shows he is only telling half truths and is not really the open source champion he is claiming to be.
Bill Mackin
/ May 3, 2010The New York Post reported today that Apple may soon be the focus of an antitrust inquiry regarding Apple’s new policy to limit which development tools maybe used when building apps for their iDevices.
You can read the full article at: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO#ixzz0muCDsic0
JakeSully
/ May 3, 2010With all due respect Flash community and developers..and I am sure you are all good and hard working poeple. Flash does not really contirbute anything to the future of the internet and communication at large. In fact, it is kinda backward! in the 90s a lot of companies and developers tried to jump on the internet and the web wagon by taking the easy way in and use java applet or activeX. Remember those wiered stuff? well Flash is no different. It is not web browser friendly and most certainly not a mobile friendly. It uses old technology and that is installing an add-on to the browser to allow for flash content to be displayed. Flash IS an activeX (or like) component and was incepted in the activeX era. It just happened that it got popular and went ahead of the pack at that time. It is only natural that it will eventually die and shelved like the rest of its peers. I am surprised it is still alive and adobe is just pumping in gas in a punctured tire. Forget about Apple! apple does not control the world. Fellow developers who are stuck on Flash should look ahead and accept change. Things shange and progrss and if you dont follow and resist under the flag of (Flash is Great..Save Flash) you are bound to be defeated. It’s the era of “web browser apps” not “apps added on the web browser”. I am a developer and I like Flash and Flex but you have to know when to stop and accept change. Thanks.
Lisa
/ May 4, 2010Great article. I can see that transitional animation and video will be handled by non-Flash technologies in the future, and will be easily adopted by developers who want to be seen on Apple mobile devices. But what about character animation and gaming experiences? It’s these uses where Flash really shines. The Gorillaz plastic beach intro is an example, and there are many others that utilize Flash to create an experience that HTML5 cannot match. I don’t see Flash as dying out, as the creation of more artistic animated content cannot be created as fluidly in any other tool. Jobs is trying to scare the development community into creating only iPod/iPad friendly technologies. If the future market included many comparable devices, less expensive, with the ability to access the entire gamut of web content, and the web experience was rich with that type of Flash content, that would make the Apple products much less desirable.
Bill Mackin
/ May 7, 2010Did you know the Canvas element (animation & drawing technology) of HTML5 is a proprietary technology owned by Apple? Don’t believe me, (I didn’t when I heard it) I invite you to investigate for yourself. Seems like something Apple should disclose when it discusses its dislike for Flash.
Granted Apple is required to provide royalty-free licensing for the patent whenever the Canvas element becomes part of a future W3C recommendation created by the HTML working group, (which could be years away). But in technology, which is often a patent minefield, sometimes strategic positioning and control over standards is more valuable than royalty payments.
Understanding this, it is easy to see that Apple prefers HTML5 because it can easily predict, and exert significant influence over where it is headed, while Flash provides for them an unknown. But the question is, does that benefit outweigh the negatives of trying to kill an ubiquitous and well established technology. Apple is already making a lot of enemies, and with their move against Flash the list has just grown substantially. I’m not sure the benefits are truly worth it, but I’ve been wrong before (I think it was back in 1980 sometime
).
What does this mean for Adobe and Flash? Well it means they still have one last magic card to play if all else fails. They can submit Flash (or a subsection of it) as a standard to the W3c.
In any case, it is certainly an interesting factoid to keep in mind as the Apple vs Flash feud continues.
Bill Mackin
/ May 12, 2010Steve is right! Lets open things up! The web should be open and free for everyone!
Now, before all you millions of silly Flash apologists start telling me about all the wonderful things we will lose on the web and how moving to open standards will push us back 5 years, remember you can always buy that cool stuff from Apple’s Awesome AppStore®™©. If you want to do real time chat on the web and it won’t work anymore without Flash… don’t cry like a little baby, just use iChat or another app from Apple’s Awesome AppStore®™©. Concerned about efficient development processes and cross platform delivery? Don’t cry like a little baby, just learn a few more things or hire some more developers, lazy ass. If you are a small child and you like playing games online via Barbie or Disney… it’s time for you to grow and be like the big cool people, we’ve got plenty of apps for you at Apple’s $$ Awesome $$ AppStore®™©! The web is for blogs and old people, cool people use apps! Don’t be left behind with dying technology… and if you’re not sure what you want, Apple can help you decide with Apple’s Awesome AppStore®™© genius picks, “just for you”.
Apple = innovation and totally awesomeness
– if you don’t like it buy an app you lazy cry baby)
Internet = old and stodgy (because we made it that way
Tim
/ May 14, 2010My thoughts on your thoughts:
“First, there’s “Open”.”
Do consumers really care about “open”? Do most even know what that means? I don’t think they do. From a consumer point-of-view, “open” is supposed to mean that one company isn’t controlling the product. But you can have collaboration without being open. From the consumer point of view, Flash is not open. However, Flash is widely-adopted, and that means more to the consumer than “open”. An ideal web using experience is where I, as a consumer, can use a web browser and go to web sites and consume the content. I shouldn’t have to download extra software, plug-ins, add-ons, whatever. That would be like having to change the seats in my car depending on where I was traveling. To an extent, Flash has alleviated that issue by providing a mechanism for web developers to deliver more content with less “add-ons”. A consumer can now get most of their web content experience with having Flash as their only add-on. But the future will have this kind of content delivered by integrated tools and will see the need for Flash greatly diminish (unless Flash is somehow enhanced to provide even more options those tools cannot).
“Full Web”
I’d have to argue Steve’s point here. “Full Web” from a user’s point of view means that I can go to any web site and see the content as it’s intended with my browser. I shouldn’t need to download extra products to see content, whether that product works on 1 web site or 1 million. To that extent, the standards that are supported across all platforms are the common denominator that *should* be used for web sites. Again, as a consumer, I shouldn’t be made to download and install extra product because you, as a web site developer think I need that technology. Nor should I be excluded from content or from the browsing experience because I choose not to install the extra products.
Reliability, Security, Performance
Let’s put security aside. I don’t know that as a Flash consumer that I have any serious security risks any more than I do with other products. But on reliability and performance, Flash fails. Flash appears to be the only cause for browser crashes on my PCs (Win or Mac). And there’s no arguing that it is a performance pig and a resource hog. Merely enabling Flash content on a Core2Duo MacBook Pro can put the processor to so much work that the laptop heats up and kicks the fans on. That kind of experience *might* be tolerable in a desktop work, but in a mobile product, it would be very frustrating. It’s not like customers who buy a mobile device and experience poor battery life because of Flash are going to call Adobe and complain. No, they will blame it on the device manufacturer.
Battery Life
I’m not sure what difference it makes, from the consumer point of view, when Adobe added support for H.264. The point that Steve was making was that *how* Adobe supports H.264 leaves it inefficient, requiring software decoding rather than hardware, which consumes twice the processing resources. Again, as a consumer, I don’t care *how* something is done, as long as it’s done well. Hardware or software–consumers don’t care. But they do care about the effect of performance and battery life. If the opposite was true and Flash performed twice as efficiently, we’d all want Flash to do the work.
Touch
The point Steve makes is that Flash was never intended to support a touch-based model. Further, the way web developers have implemented flash (using rollovers) means that the Flash of today on a touch-based device does not work well. It might even prevent users from being able to consume some content.
The argument to be made about using alternative technologies is valid if those technologies are better suited for a touch-based model. As a developer, I may be able to work around the limitations of Flash not supporting touch gestures, but that may compromise my design or the execution of my content. If another technology (supported by current, existing browsers) provides a better tool, I would want to use it. As a consumer, I will naturally choose options that work better for me. If one web site provides a better experience because it properly manages the touch-based experience, it will win against a competitive site that does not. I think that’s the point to be made: where sites should be directing their efforts to support the massive wave of new users with touch-based devices.
Tim
/ May 14, 2010Part 2: What is Flash, really?
What is this “Flash” that I apparently “must have” in order to use the internet? To answer that, let’s look at how Flash is used on web sites:
1) Advertisements. This is by a wide margin the most common use of flash.
2) Games/Animation
3) sIFR text. A way to use Flash for fancy typography
4) Audio and video content delivery
Advertisements. Clearly Flash increases the dynamic presentation of advertisements. From a user’s perspective, the average Flash-based advertisement is a vast improvement over the tacky animated GIFs of yesteryear. Given most users would rather not be inundated with ads at all, this can hardly be seen as a benefit or necessity for the user. Regardless, whatever the technology used to deliver them, ads will be delivered. Score: none
Games/Animation. There are literally tens of thousands of Flash-based games on the internet. Flash makes developing games easy for those not technically-savvy in a programming language typically used. Most consumers would view the quality of the vast majority of these games as highly inferior and not very desirable. It’s not uncommon for web sites to use Flash-based games as teasers to entice potential customers to buy the “full version” of their product. That said, there are some worthwhile, playable, free Flash games. And as we all know, it’s the games that seems to interest people the most. And for web-based games, it appears Flash does it best. Score: Flash +1
sIFR text. Flash provided web developers a relatively easy means to create interesting typography, either by using fonts not typically installed on a user’s device or by animating the typography (or both). Flash was the first tool to deliver this capability (used to the extent that developers implement it) in a product with widespread use. However, HTML5 can handle this task with much lower overhead and without the need to install extra software–the browser supports it natively. Score: Flash -1
Audio/Video content delivery. Flash can deliver animations that can be delivered with less bandwidth than if the same animation were encoded as video content. That mattered several years ago when internet connection speeds were measured in kbp/s rather than Mbp/s, and before streaming was mainstream (enjoy the pun). Now that robust video content can be delivered easily (through better encoding standards and high-speed connections), user expectations are reaching beyond cheesy animations into true video (and even hi-def) content.
Flash also delivers audio and video by acting as a “container” for that content. In this case, Flash provides no added-value to the consumer. Web designers use Flash to create their own custom interface (play, forward, reverse, stop buttons, etc.), but this hurts the user experience more than it helps it by creating non-standard, confusing and sometimes conflicting user interfaces for what should be a standard, predictable interface presentation. Further, the same audio and video content can be delivered without Flash. In fact, were it not for the Flash containers on this media, nearly every user without a Flash player would be able to consume this content. If ever there was an argument that Flash is not necessary, this is surely it. Score: Flash -2 (one for audio and one for video).
So, realistically, the only reason for Flash is for Flash-based web games. The only other reason why consumers would use Flash is to get access to the media content that Flash is encapsulating. But without that encapsulation, we wouldn’t want or need Flash to deliver that media.
In a nutshell: if another technology can deliver Flash-quality (or better) web-based games without added software/plug-ins and if that technology were to be significantly adopted, there would be no consumer need for Flash.
Bill Mackin
/ May 27, 2010@ Tim
Thanks for the comments. It sounds like we disagree on a few points, but I appreciate you contributing to the conversation. Here are a few things to think about.
Concerning your comments on the “full web”.
Flash has come preinstalled on computers for a long time now, no installation needed. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I had to actually install Flash. I’ve been prompted to upgrade my Flash Player but it has been a very long time (and a lot of computers) since I last had to install Flash. As new content is developed/distributed users will always need to upgrade their software, as an example users will need to upgrade their browsers to view HTML5 content. This does not change the fact that without support for Flash you cannot see the “full web”.
Concerning your comments on Flash Performance.
This is not a Flash issue, this is a “rich content” issue. Any technology that delivers complex animations and rich interactivity has the same problems Flash has. HTML5, javascript, SVG, Java, Silverlight, etc. they all have the same problem! You only see it with Flash, because when a developer is creating “rich content” for the web, they use Flash.
Concerning your comments on Battery Life.
Adobe has only used software decoding for H.264 (on Apple hardware) because Apple, until just recently, has not provided them with the required API to do H.264 hardware decoding. See link (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/gala/).
Concerning your comments on Touch.
You may need to find a better source for your information. The whole reason I wrote this article is because Steve Jobs statements in many cases were utterly false. First, let me tell you that the latest version of Flash has full support for touch, multi-touch and even custom gestures. Further, I do not believe HTML5 currently has any support for touch. Second, all internet technologies were developed before the “touch revolution” and they will ALL have problems handling touch gestures, (this includes javascript, HTML5, java, silverlight, etc.). On a side note, you should know that Flash was originally developed for touch Kiosks and may actually be the one internet technology that is well positioned for the “touch revolution”. The idea that the use of roll overs in Flash websites makes them unusable is nonsense. Flash simply maps roll overs to touch events, so if you want to open a menu that opens via roll over… you just touch it. Numerous independent 3rd parties have verified that nearly all of the current Flash content they have encountered works just fine on touch devices.
Concerning your comments on, how Flash is used.
First, let me say that your list of Flash uses misses the main point. Why is Flash being used for these things? Flash enables designers/developers to easily combine audio, video, typography, animation and interactivity to create rich interactive experiences. But lets take a look at your specific examples.
Advertisements
Most end users don’t want ads, so this certainly is not a feature that will drive users to want Flash. In fact, it is probably the main reason some people don’t like Flash. While I disagree this is the most common use of Flash, I agree with you that advertisements are much better now than they were back in the day.
Games/Animation
I agree that Flash games are a bright spot for Flash, but your discussion seems to miss the value of animation. There is a reason many large companies (Nike, McDonalds, General Motors, Disney, etc.) build their sites with Flash and a big part of that is animation. The real reason, as I said before, is that ability to create rich interactive experiences that combine audio, video, animation, typography and interaction.
sIFR text
While HTML5/CSS3 finally now allow the use of fonts, their abilities are anemic when compared to Flash. Consider the most basic issue of including fonts. With Flash you simply embed the fonts in your SWF file. With the font tag in HTML5/CSS3 you are required to upload the file to your web host along with all of your other website files. Yet, due to copyright issues, it is illegal to do this. For this reason, you must procure another web hosting service just to host your font files, so they will be protected. Seems like a lot of extra work for no real benefit.
Audio/Video
I can say with all confidence that you do not understand why 75% of all internet video is delivered using Flash. Remember, Flash didn’t get to dominate internet video because there were no other options. Microsoft pushed very hard with Windows Media Player, Real pushed very hard with their Real Player and of course Apple pushed hard with Quicktime. Flash dominated this space because it provided real value to designers/developers and end users! Flash provides some amazing streaming controls, as well as content protection and universal deployment. Don’t take my word for it, Hulu recently posted a statement saying they would not be switching to HTML5 for video and listed a multitude of reasons why it would not be possible due to the unique offerings Flash provides.
Keep in mind that for HTML5 video to work, all major browser companies must agree on a video format and implement it uniformly. Currently Google is supporting WebM (an open source version of the VP8 codec from On2), Mozilla & Opera support Theora and have stated they will never support H.264 (because it is not open source) and Apple & Microsoft are supporting H.264. It looks like agreements and universal adoption is a long way off.
I’m not sure I understand your argument against Flash enabling designers to create their own video controls. There is no standard for CD or DVD players and yet everyone seems to operate them just fine. I personally haven’t had any problems using Flash video and the overall adoption of Flash for internet video seems to say others are happy with it as well. I’m also not sure what you are holding up as an improved alternative. HTML5 allows developers to create their own controls just like Flash does. In other words, HTML5 video does not mean we will get universal video controls!
I also find fault with your argument that Flash is only a container and therefore useless. Almost every video technology available has a container. There are codecs and containers, that is just the way of the video world. A very simple example of this is Quicktime, which can play H.264 content as well as MP3, AAC, H.263, MPEG-2 and on and on. You will always need a container to have granular control over the content.
Your conclusions that Flash is therefore only good for games, seems extremely far fetched! The truth is that Flash provides great solutions to many problems on the internet, that is why it is used so universally. Animation will always be an important part of websites and Flash makes that extremely easy! Video is a big part of the internet and Flash provides excellent video & audio features now. Typography is a critical aspect of any design and Flash provides the most robust and easiest support for typography. Internet applications are the wave of the future and the Flash platform (including Flex) provides the most efficient way to deliver high quality internet apps. Flash provides a way to reach 98% of all internet enabled computers without having to worry about compatibility issues. So why would we try to kill it? Especially before anything is ready to replace it?
Joe
/ July 4, 2010I totally agree. I’ve been a mac user since 1997 , which means I use NO OTHER TECHNOLOGY because apple is SO proprietary right? OSX, mac pro, macbook pro, macbook, itunes, iphone, ipod (every generation), iwork, so Steve’s comments really threw my for a loop. What a hypocrite.
Thanks again for the insight. Long live flash………..