Adobe Flash May Be Flawed, But It's Still Critical to the Web

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/01/sympathy_for_the_devil.html' target='_blank'>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/0..._the_devil.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"In the last couple of years, it has become trendy to bash the Adobe Flash Player. I need to say a few things on that subject. First, let's be very clear: I'm not on the Flash team. I don't speak for them. (I don't speak for anyone but myself.) This post is just my personal take on things. Caveat lector. I came to Adobe ten years ago to build an open standards (SVG)-based Web animation tool. I like standards, and I have some experience here. Both authoring for &amp; competing with the Flash Player gave me some good perspective."</em></p><p>Flash is a flawed product - what software isn't though - yet is has managed to advance the Web in a variety of ways, not the least of which is making online streaming video an easy to use reality. This is a really interesting article written by an Adobe employee that takes a critical look at the state of Flash and the technologies that are vying to replace it. Flash might be sometimes obnoxious - especially when it's used to <a href="http://www.jasondunn.com/flash-banners-browser-crash-1886" target="_blank">create advertising banners that crash every browser out there</a> - but it's also tremendously powerful, giving rise to world-changing sites like YouTube.</p>

[Hooch Tan]

I have to agree that Flash is critical to the Web in its current state. I think a large part of the anger against Flash is that it is the standard for delivering ads. It is the abuse that people remember, and overlook all the positives that Flash has brought. It is not just with video delivery, but I also think that Flash has played a large part in developing more interactive websites (I'll freely admit that many are also really poorly implemented and I'm sorry, but HTML5 is still not here.) and contributed greatly to the rise of casual games.

The only serious complaint I have with flash is that and it is related to Flash's notorious CPU usage, with a dozen flash elements on a webpage, performance, or video playback can really suffer.

[ptyork]

Exceptionally timely given today's "magical" device unveiling. How on Earth you can release a 10" iPod Touch with no multitasking and no Flash/Silverlight/.Net/Java/anything-other-than-modal-single-screen-itunes-filtered-cocoa-app support and call it magical is beyond me. Actually makes me appreciate my old clunker Gateway TabletPC and makes that new HP slate all the more interesting.

Please Microsoft, make the Courier real!!! I'd love a 'tween device (my eyes are getting too bad for a <4" screen), but the iPad sure ain't it.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but it seemed at least related. :)

[stlbud]

The biggest problem with the bloatware that is Flash is incompetent web designers who rely too much on Flash for their pages rather than using simpler faster methods.

By the way, Microsoft was one of the first to bring streaming video and audio to the web with Media Player. WinAmp was also a pioneer in streaming media. Either of these technologies could be embedded in the page just as seamlessly as Flash allows.

Flash simplified dynamic web content and was promoted to neophyte web designers who were already in bed with Adobe products such as Photoshop. Everything done in Flash has been done by other methods using tools such as Java, Javascript, CSS, Dyinamic HTML, etc.

[doogald]

IMO, Flash cannot die soon enough. I cannot wait for it to be gone. The phenomenal success of the iPhone and iPod Touch may be what gets web designers to figure out solutions that don't require this battery draining, memory slogging, security challenged junkware. Even Youtube is able to deliver content to iPhone OS devices without Flash.

[Islanti]

[...]I'm sorry, but HTML5 is still not here.With both Vimeo and Youtube offering HTML5 players now that work very well in Safari and Firefox HTML5 is well on its way to reducing the dependence on Flash (for video at least).

[Macguy59]

With both Vimeo and Youtube offering HTML5 players now that work very well in Safari and Firefox HTML5 is well on its way to reducing the dependence on Flash (for video at least).

Beat me to it. HTML5 still has a ways to go but is already a capable video player. I especially like when someone goes off about a product that doesn't support flash and using a product like a netbook to demonstrate . . . oh wait :D

[ptyork]

With both Vimeo and Youtube offering HTML5 players now that work very well in Safari and Firefox HTML5 is well on its way to reducing the dependence on Flash (for video at least).

Actually they work "okay" in Chrome and Safari. Not in Firefox. They don't allow for full screen and at least on YouTube don't allow for ad-supported videos (not sure what the issue is there). The HTML5 video tag is a) still non-standard and even when made a "recommendation" will still be implemented differently in each browser, b) does not specify a standard codec and Firefox will never ship with h.264 for licensing reasons, c) is far less configurable (yes even for video) than Flash, and d) doesn't (at least as part of the standard) support protected streams--i.e., the type required by Hulu or Netflix. This is in no way a replacement for Flash or Silverlight. It may well cut down on it's use in certain situations, but sadly Flash is here for the long haul.

[Hooch Tan]

HTML5 is definitely on its way, and I can see it making the whole "web experience" better, and video is probably the best real application it should start with. However, Flash provides a much more consistent experience and still provides much more. Don't get me wrong, I'll be glad when Flash is a thing of the past, or at least, reaches a point where it is not as demanding as it currently is, but I do see it as a critical component to a regular user's experience for the near term. The problem is that I think adoption of HTML5 will take at least another year or two, and with that, we're back to the problem of how each browser will render it. One thing I do wonder though, is if YouTube did not pick Flash but something else, like Java, what world would we be in now?

[doogald]

Actually they work "okay" in Chrome and Safari. Not in Firefox. They don't allow for full screen and at least on YouTube don't allow for ad-supported videos (not sure what the issue is there). The HTML5 video tag is a) still non-standard and even when made a "recommendation" will still be implemented differently in each browser, b) does not specify a standard codec and Firefox will never ship with h.264 for licensing reasons, c) is far less configurable (yes even for video) than Flash, and d) doesn't (at least as part of the standard) support protected streams--i.e., the type required by Hulu or Netflix. This is in no way a replacement for Flash or Silverlight. It may well cut down on it's use in certain situations, but sadly Flash is here for the long haul.

And yet, just yesterday, I was watching the new iPad video on Apple's web site in Firefox 3.6 and it was not Flash. There are ways to deliver video content without relying on Flash.

I think that it's possible that Adobe will eventually deliver Flash that doesn't suck CPU and RAM, doesn't use proprietary flash cookies, and doesn't suck power in mobile devices. Possible, but I am not holding my breath.

[ptyork]

And yet, just yesterday, I was watching the new iPad video on Apple's web site in Firefox 3.6 and it was not Flash. There are ways to deliver video content without relying on Flash.

Yep, that was Quicktime. There's also RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, DiVX Player, and a host of others. They all suck for different reasons, mostly for their lack of good, cross-platform capabilities, which is something that Flash does indeed do well. Oh, and Quicktime on a non-Apple platform is more of a virus than a plug-in. Install it and you've got a startup "checker" and a background "helper" and a terrible assumption that just because you want to watch movies using this particular player that you should also need to install iTunes and Safari. Far worse than Flash. Not a slam, just being real.

I think that it's possible that Adobe will eventually deliver Flash that doesn't suck CPU and RAM, doesn't use proprietary flash cookies, and doesn't suck power in mobile devices. Possible, but I am not holding my breath.

Perhaps it's because I don't use a Mac regularly (I know that Adobe has a bad reputation on OS X), that I have decently powerful computers (at least a step up from "netbooks"), and that I rely heavily on AdBlock Plus, but I really don't see the problem with Flash. For me, it is the developers and the lazy web masters that suck RAM and CPU THROUGH Flash. They'll be able to do the same thing with D/HTML. There's nothing magical once they have a reasonable way of doing it with assurances that it'll play well cross browsers. Simple sprite animation using JavaScript and CSS Layers is probably MORE taxing than the same using ActionScript. And you won't simply be able to disable HTML like you can Flash...