Home › Blogs › administrator's blog

Dear Apple, please offer a compelling option to Flash.

The interweb is abuzz with the new iPad and the impending line in the sand that Apple is drawing regarding Flash Player support.

I have been part of some interesting discussions regarding the iPhone, the iPad and the ramifications of lack of support for the Flash Player will have. I even read today that Virgin America is no longer using Flash on its website. This won't be the first time that sales of a product has dictated the survival or extinction of one or more technologies. Apple is at the forefront of change. Sometimes for the better.

What concerns me, is that with Apple's defiant step away from the support of Flash it is not offering a compelling alternative for rich web media content. Steve Jobs even equated Flash to dead or dying technologies. This is the first time that Apple, in a long time, has not offered a compelling alternative to the technology they shunned. Floppy drives? Almost everyone had a CD burner by then, so that was no shocker. Optical drives? Well, you're still supporting them...  Firewire 400? There weren't that many people using those... and Firewire 800 takes its place nicely for those who do.

Instead, Apple ought to offer a compelling alternative to Flash, or at least work with companies like Adobe to find one. 

There are many who would say that Flash isn't being used appropriately. I would agree. Flash is not a magic bullet that makes all things web easy, fun, engaging and wonderful. Flash DOES solve some major challenges that currently are not solved by other technologies. Talk to anyone who produces with Flash and ask them how excited they would be about building their current project in something like jQuery. Could it be done? Maybe, but it wouldn't be pretty. Jobs accuses Flash of being buggy. Fine. Can't argue with that. However, the alternatives are not necessarily going to be any less buggy.

Here's where it gets crazy. (I listen to a few too many conspiracy theory shows, so from this point on my credibility shifts from plausible to implausible but entertaining.)

I am struck with a sensation that Mr. Jobs is pulling a "methinks she doth protest too much" reaction when he mounts his attack on Flash. My BS-o-meter goes up, and I am left thinking, "what's the big deal?" Then I am struck with another thought, "the big deal is the AppStore." 

Apple can't control rich media content built in Flash delivered over the web. They can't force a web user to use a paid for app from the AppStore if Flash is able to run an equivalent offering on the web. Perhaps Flash is a threat. This seems to be a more plausible notion and fits this outright rejection of the technology. 

There are those who play the "proprietary" card. Flash is a proprietary technology and not an open standard like HTML5 and CSS3. True. So, show me a compelling alternative that offers as much of a rich media experience, that can be developed using an IDE that is fairly easy to learn, with a fairly robust scripting language. Flash allows me to be a designer and a developer. I can work in one tool and get both design and development tasks done. 

So, here is my challenge to Mr. Jobs and his brilliant team of different thinkers and paradigm shifters. Bring us a compelling tool that will replace Flash and all that it does, that spits out web-ready standards based non-player based code, while keeping the IDE simple clean and efficient for production. Then I will think that you have done something excellent. Then I will believe that your desire was to keep technology moving forward. Then I will be relieved of my pessimistic opinion that the real reason behind this rejection of technology is driven by money.

That's all I ask. If Flash is archaic, make something better to replace it. You did it with the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, iTunes, FinalCut Pro and so many others, what's stopping you?

 

EAVB_VVEUPIAJJG

Comments

Tue, 04/06/2010 - 22:09 — Anonymous

Rich Media

There is no argument from me about the richness of Flash content. The benefit of disarming flash is not to destroy Flash's strengths, but more to destroy Flash weaknesses. If everyone used flash properly, there would be virtually no flash use. Flash has been used as video containers, audio containers, animated ads, entire websites, and typography on the web. Weaknesses? Most of the people who build Flash don't know how to let robots read their webpages. The Flash source code looks like it was programmed by a confused octopus. There is very little GPU support for Flash and it also does not utilize the OS it is running on to it's advantage (see also: Java Apps). Flash has major issues with secondary clicks, touch screen support (cursor hovering), and much more. The desire for Flash is the remnants of an old paradigm. We all assumed that there would be a complete merging of desktop and web based apps. Rich media content on the web is desirable, that's why people loved plopping ridiculous gif files in emails in 1995. Do you eat a steak with a swiss army knife regularly? Do you cut paper with a swiss army knife regularly? Do you file your nails with a swiss army knife regularly? Do you pluck your eyebrows with a swiss army knife regularly? Do you open tin cans with a swiss army knife regularly? Because of the mechanical intensity of all of these tasks most are better suited to single purpose tools. Single function tools always function better than multi-function tools unless the goal of design is to have broad range of utility. I would definitely bring a swiss army knife with me camping because it has such broad utility. For regularly used devices, single purpose design dominates. The broad usage technologies get distilled into separate pieces when there is enough demand for using the technology separately from the generic usage. Then when technology allows for multiple tools to be combined without compromise those technologies become single purpose devices. For example: smart phones are used for text communication, voice communication, and tracking common information such as contacts and calendars. Smart phones have replaced so much: the Rolodex, pad of paper, the inbox, the outbox, the desk calendar, snail mail, carbon paper, personal assistants, photocopiers, the telephone, and much more. They have only dominated because electronic versions have benefits over the old systems. Adobe has realized that Flash needs to specialize in order to survive. Which is why they announced Packager for iPhone at Adobe MAX 2009. Packager will allow developers to package existing projects with minor modifications. Which means Flash devs can reap the benefits of the Flash/Flex all-in-one development platform while utilizing the benefits of the application model instead of the web content paradigm. Despite the popularity of web applications there has never been a time before now that so clearly distinguishes the differences between web applications and standalone applications. We develop for platforms now because generic computing lacks the specific focus on functions that the end user desires. -CL
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 14:45 — Anonymous

…invest in creatives

“…invest in creative people who know how to execute in a number of ways, people who prioritize learning new tools to solve a problem over honing their chops. Don’t sell (or discourage) Flash or standards to your clients; instead, sell creative brand extensions, accessible content, enjoyable experiences, and simple maintainability.” “Web design education is stagnant; it will take dedicated people who are willing to challenge the status quo to change that. Get involved with the wonderful work that’s being done in the area of web design education” http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashstandards/
Sat, 03/13/2010 - 01:19 — administrator

Great quotes!

To be sure! Don't be fooled that this one blog post implies a myopic view of web technologies. Guru is dedicated to the best solution for the job. If there is a good technology, we pursue it! The point I am trying to make is that until someone comes up with something better, Flash is good technology. It does good stuff for some things. I was just looking at an online learning game today that was built in JS, HTML, and CSS. It was aborted with a suggestion to rebuild it in Flash.

So, this post is about Apple drawing a line in the sand, and providing a very weak justification (old, bad technology) that acts as a thin veil over the more obvious likelihood that this decision is a dollars and cents control issue.

Web design education is hardly stagnant at Guru. Come on by, we can talk over a lovely cup of coffee. We can look at how we Guru is in a position to move quicker than other institutions to keep up to the changes in the industry.

Developers and designers will adapt, that's what we do, we adapted when MS released its various abominations. We adapted when jQuery became the new norm. We adapted when PHP became the defacto middleware. Adaptation is what we do. But adaptation implies there is something to adapt to. What's missing here is the "to." All I am saying is if Apple wants to think different, fantastic, they've changed what is considered the "best browsing experience" now fill those gaping holes you've left behind, don't blame the designer, developer, support us, ease the transition, create a rosetta stone and make the world a better place.

Simple! ;)

Fri, 03/19/2010 - 15:16 — Anonymous

“Apple drawing a line in

“Apple drawing a line in the sand, and providing a very weak justification”?? “Current Flash sites could never be made work well on any touchscreen device, and this cannot be solved by Apple, Adobe, or magical new hardware.” (An Adobe Flash developer on why the iPad can’t use Flash). Apple’s plan?? “With a stated love for Web standards such as HTML5, Cascading Style Sheets 3 and Scaleable Vector Graphics, Microsoft has released a Platform Preview of Internet Explorer 9” (Microsoft Touts HTML5, SVG Support in IE9 Platform Preview) In a world where Facebook pulls in more web traffic than Google others are not adapting, they are embracing change.
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 14:42 — Anonymous

You answered your own question

Apple does offer an alternative and you mentioned it yourself: it called the app. Apple would much prefer that developers use Cocoa Touch to interface with their hardware. It does everything flash does and, arguably does thingS better, partiularly when considering the hardware/software integration. Is this a case of Apple you using their power to steer technology in their favour? Of course. But every single technology company does so faulting Apple for trying doesn't seem fair.
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 16:10 — administrator

Cocoa Touch is a development tool.

Try composing an animation in that. Blech. So, no I haven't answered my own question. My request is for a solution that does all that Flash does on the web. Cocoa Touch does not. I am all for HTML5 and CSS3 and plug-in free script execution, but give me a tool that allows me to work as a Rich Media developer, not an Applications developer. Even game level editors don't force the game level designer to work in one mode or the other. Flash let me work in both modes in one IDE. Bring me a timeline in the Cocoa Touch IDE and you will start getting my attention.
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 16:43 — Anonymous

Doesn't seem to be a problem for other developers

I don't understand this argument because the lack of timeline doesn't seem to be an obstacle for developing "rick media apps" for literally tens of thousands of developers. Truth be told, your argument sounds like sour grapes because Apple's development paradigm doesn't fit how the Flash community thinks about developing rich apps. Someone coming from a more application development background could easily turn your argument around 180 degrees and neither of you would be wrong.

The reality is, Flash is a browser based technology (yes I know it can run out of the browser, but its a niche at this point) and Apple's vision is to access the web without a browser. Are we there yet? No, of course not. But is that where its going? The raging success of the iPhone and other smartphones/appliances would suggest it is and it appears that for now, Flash doesn't have a place at the table.
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 19:03 — administrator

I am not worried about the developers.

I don't argue that Flash may be a dying technology. I just loathe the notion of trying to get designers to use tools that are not meant for designers.  

If we remove Flash from the web experience and we take a few steps backwards. My desire and request in the article is that we keep moving forward. If you want to shift the paradigm, give me something to shift to. I am a designer first, developer second. I don't think the way programmers do, and there is a gigantic community of people like me.

My challenge to Apple is not to start supporting Flash. My challenge is to give me something better. HTML5, CSS3 and plug-in-less scripting engines don't have the IDE to make the creation of Flash-equivalent results. All I ask is a clever tool that lets me think like a designer while developing my widgets. If it is Apple that does this, great. If it is Adobe, wonderful. If it is an Adobe competitor, so be it.

Today, if I work with a designer and present them with a Flash based widget or a jQuery widget, most of the time they will prefer the Flash one. They will concede or compromise at some point to use the jQuery one. Rarely are jQuery (or some other JavaScript library) widgets as rich or as well designed as a Flash widget. I just finished working on a project for a client where we opted for a Flash based map widget. It looked the best, functioned the best, and frankly, there was nothing better out there. Could we have sufficed with a jQuery solution? Sure. But why?

What Apple has effectively done is say, designers have no right developing rich media. Only developers deserve to play in that space. Rich media exists because of Flash and designers who develop. Does Flash go too far? Sure. Do we see stupid iPhone Apps? You bet! (Those fart apps really show off the technology so well.)

Removing Flash leaves a void. The purveyor of the removal has an opportunity to fill that void. Apple is always quick to provide the "complete package" experience. So, it surprises me that they have taken the flat-out rejection strategy when they have been masters of the rosetta stone transition.

Wed, 03/03/2010 - 19:49 — Anonymous

World Won't Need Browsers -- at least not as much

I hear what you are saying and it makes sense, but its based on a fundamental assumption that content consumption will continue to happen through the browser (Flash and JQuery are effectively browser-only technologies). Today, that may be true, but Apple is betting that in 3-5 years, it won't be. By excluding Flash, which undoubtedly produces the richest web apps today, Apple has made its first push to move people away from the browser and towards specialty apps. And Apple isn't alone in this either. Google has multiple initiatives to blend the browser into the device (see Chrome OS, Android or the Chrome browser itself). Personally, I'm using general purpose browsers less and less and I suspect I'm not alone.

As for the desire for a better "designer first" tool, the market will decide this one. It may be Apple, it may be someone else. But the reality is, if the demand isn't there, then it won't happen. If history is any indication, long-tail pressures will make it happen, particularly if the iPhone/iPad OS becomes the prevalent device OS of the near-future. You could make a good argument that Adobe's iPhone Packager is the first of such a class of tool.
Sun, 03/07/2010 - 01:25 — administrator

All for browserless, but still not solving the problem now.

The iPad is launching in weeks. We live in a world where ubiquitous technologies die more and more slowly. IE6 lingered long past its prime. While Apple might try to drive technology, the fact is that their new iPad is going to suffer from its lack of support of the most installed plug-in on the web. I doubt current web developers who use Flash solutions today are going to stop because the iPad won't support their choice. The iPhone has made a dent, but I tend to think of it the same way I think of all smart phones. There ought to be a different way to experience rich media on a smart phone just because of the form factor.

When it comes to the iPad, Apple is being belligerent. They are refusing to support a technology that makes for a complete browsing experience. Their form factor on the iPad is going to lead to experience expectations that match laptops. Nobody will look at the inability to render their page properly and think "gosh, I wonder if there's an AppStore app for that." 

Apple could do some interesting things here and build a Flash Player app that sends current Flash media to a special player app outside the browser. I can think of others that would go beyond simply living in the world of technological denial, and build a bridge to something better. 

We are still several years away from Flash's transformation into something different. I suppose if you want to topple a giant you have to start somewhere. I am just surprised they would choose to do so with a device that they've touted at the "best web browsing experience." It's not. It was obvious in the keynote and I was embarrassed for Jobs. 

Mon, 03/15/2010 - 19:05 — Anonymous

One more thing...

I should have mentioned one other thing that you and others have nailed-- Apple's comment about "best web browsing experience" sounds a lot like classic Jobsian smoke screen. The browser isn't the iPad's killer feature -- consuming long form and hybrid content is, and the iPad is optimized to do this without the browser. Not sure I was embarrassed though -- I think he knew what he was saying.
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:16 — administrator

knew what he was saying...

It was a mixed message. For a device that is designed for consuming long-form content and not web content, he spent a great deal of time on web. It would be like spending more time demoing the calendar features of the iPod rather than the music player. I think it was either a screw-up, or it was an "I don't care" moment. Now we are hearing that iPad won't support Picasa. Strange.
Mon, 03/15/2010 - 18:47 — Anonymous

Not Either/Or

Maybe this is where you and I disagree -- the iPad is NOT a laptop nor does it share a similar experience. As such, Apple is suggesting (perhaps belligerently) that Flash is not appropriate for a number of reasons that we've discussed already. Flash apps in a computer environment already breed inconsistencies in functionality and this will get exacerbated in a UI paradigm that rids itself of the mouse. Adobe seems destined down the same path as Sun followed in trying to encourage Java on phones. The "write once, run everywhere" promise delivered nothing but apps that were as good as the lowest common denominator, to the detriment of the quality of the app.

Besides, this isn't an either/or argument. As with all new technologies, developers will support as many platforms that they feel customers want/need to access. Its not like multiple platform strategies are anything new. And like you said, I don't think this means Flash developers are going to out of work anytime soon. However, I believe you are underestimating the customer expectation that content providers need to meet. If a page doesn't render in their fancy new iPad, I believe a customer is more likely to say "why doesn't this site work with the hot device everyone wanted" not "why won't Apple run Flash." Apple, through killer design, clever marketing, its developer strategy and very keen understanding of the market segment has shifted this expectation (and I have no delusions -- Apple has completely manipulated this to their advantage). Unfortunately, it means a new toolset to play in the sandbox, but as I've mentioned before, its just different, not worse.