Flash Is No Longer Necessary?

Best op-ed I've read on the subject.
Thanks for the post.

Easy tiger

All Jobs said was "it wasn't necessary" and he is right. For so many years we needed Flash to render video that looked good across platforms. That isn't "necessary" any long with HTML 5.

That doesn't mean that Flash is no longer relevant. It certainly is superior to HTML 5 in many other use-cases.

I'd have to agree that flash isn't going away anytime soon. My two cents though: Flash is going to have to overcome its SEO drawbacks and its inability to easily interact with social media. Otherwise Flash developers are just creating islands on the internet, which should become increasingly harder and harder to sell to a client.

Nice editorial, Joe.

In my opinion, I think we'll see wide ranging support for HTML5 sooner than 3-5 years. You can currently get HTML5 to work across all modern browsers. Webkit and Firefox have supported it for several versions. IE 6-8 (always the exception to the rule) need some JS to work. IE 9 is rumored to have full support. I must concede that a lot of us are still supporting IE6. So, in terms of 'out of the box' support, yeah, it could be a while. But, I'd personally put the timetable at 2-3 years.

Unfortunately, browsers aren't going to standardize on H.264. Firefox has already said they will use the Ogg Theora/Ogg Vorbis formats. This, in my opinion, still gives Flash the edge in video. Why would I want to encode/upload in two formats? Especially through a CMS.

"But more and more lately, Apple is starting to evolve into everything they hated about Microsoft twenty years ago." I totally agree, ha-ha.

While I can sympathize with the author's frustration in having to shift to a new paradigm, his article ignores the main reason Apple is crushing Flash: Apple does not want their development community to be dependent on an intermediate layer (between the software and the device), if that intermediate layer is controlled by a third party. When Apple releases new hardware, they want the user experience to improve immediately, not if and when the intermediate layer is updated to take advantage of the new hardware.

So, why not let the developers choose for themselves which bed they lie in? Simply put, Apple is confident that the combination of Xcode and HTML5 is as good as or better than any equally-spanned competitor. And those who disagree must decide if it's worth forgoing the Apple device market altogether. I suspect Apple has made the cold calculation that not many will vote with their feet.

To summarize, Apple believes its tightly-controlled release schedule is a competitive advantage, and it is in a position to protect that. Perhaps it is acting ruthlessly, but that is business. And developers, grudgingly or not, will come along or risk find themselves in the tar pits.

This op-ed lacks puns!

@JRH
You're arguing a different point. Flash in a browser has nothing to do with the new TOS involving banning Flash as a way to develop iPhone/iPad applications. This article has nothing to do with that point and is only talking about Flash and browsers.

@BRent:

Right, but Apple is not disallowing Flash in its (non-mobile) browsers, so either Joe is upset about:

1) The new TOS (addressed in my comment)
2) Apple not supporting Flash on mobile device browsers
3) Apple dissing Flash in general

(1) and (2) ultimately are a similar ball of wax (just that (2) adds a few more reasons why Apple would disallow Flash), and I tried to address that in my comment.

(3) is more about Flash vs HTML5, in which case Joe should focus his anger not just on Apple, but on Microsoft, Google, and everyone else who is part of the grand cabal to wrest control of content development away from Adobe and put it into a more open standard.

Or am I missing something?

JRH,

What bothers me, is that as it stands now, Flash is the best option for delivering rich, cross-platform, content to users. Will that still be the case in 3 years, who knows...

But Apple is forcing businesses that are heavily reliant on brand and experience to decide, to either :

A. build the best experience possible for their brand, product, service, whatever, via Flash, knowing that iPad users will be denied the experience.

or...

B. potentially compromise the experience for everyone, just so that the everyone, including iPad users, can consume the content.

I'll be the first to tell you that Flash is not ideal for most projects, but is still a great tool when used properly as an embedded component, or even full Flash micro-site for a video game, upcoming movie, or a new line of bras.

I personally would rather have the option of visiting a poorly built, all Flash site, that chews up the processor, and might even crash my browser, than being told I can't view any Flash content at all.

If Apple is so concerned with providing the best and most reliable experience on their devices, when will they be ending their exclusive relationship with AT&T, or even dumping them all together?

Joe,

100% agreement with you that this is not about Apple providing the best and most reliable experience for its users. If that were the case, as you point out, we'd all be using iPhones on Verizon.

It is much more the case that Apple is trying to leverage its current advantage to make sure that they are not held up by anyone (Adobe). As you point out, HTML5 is not where Flash is now for many things, but with this single stroke Apple has created a very viable market for HTML5 development tools and compatibility. Hopefully, this means a shorter-than-normal transition. Also, having support from the other big browsers means users aren't waiting around for their browser of choice to support the standard (talk to any Linux user about their experiences with Flash).

The problem with "leaving it up to the user", in the world of standards, is that this often creates a fatal inertia. Witness the countless well-conceived, forward-looking standards that never leave the drafting table.

JRH

JRH,

Maybe I am naive, but to say "HTML5 is not where Flash is now for many things" means that HTML 5 is already behind the curve...

Are you suggesting the plan is to gradually add features and functionality to HTML 5 over the coming years, to make sure it is cutting edge, and can compete with Flash? And if so, are all browsers going to adopt these "upgrades" as they come out? Sounds like a recipe for a compatibility nightmare if you ask me.

Adobe releases a new version of Flash about every 18 months, and each version typically brings fantastic new possibilities to the table for developers like me. Last I checked it was approximately 14-15 years between the HTML 4, and HTML 5. How long before we expect HTML 6?

I suppose anything is possible, if everyone can agree on what should be what, when it should be added, and how it should be supported across all browsers, but I wont hold my breath.

At the end of the day, HTML 5 is still a mark-up language, not a programming language, so the idea that it will be a viable option to replace quality Flash content, just doesn't hold water in my opinion.

Nice take on the subject Joe - was waiting to hear your perspective.

Well said Joe:
"If Apple is so concerned with providing the best and most reliable experience on their devices, when will they be ending their exclusive relationship with AT&T"

I agree with you that HTML5 is ultimately a mark-up language, and as such will be constrained by browser implementation. The good news here is that the browser market is about the most competitive software market we have, with viable contenders from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Opera, Firefox, to name a few. I would rather have the evolution of web functionality depend on competitive forces than on a single company's whims (however good that may be at this point, and that point is debatable). To invoke the "they are just like Microsoft" trope, I wonder how many people felt the way you do about Flash about Internet Explorer (or Windows) back when that was the only game in town. It took a real point of comparison to reveal the glacial pace of innovation going on there.

I agree with you on two points, however:

1) The failure or success of HTML5 will depend ultimately on how well the interested parties are able to agree on features of the standard. I don't know the politics or process well enough to guess, but so far it seems to be going well enough. Obviously this is critical.

2) HTML5 will probably never give the same "native app" feel that Flash does. Some would argue, however, that that is a feature, not a bug, since Flash does what it does so well precisely by breaking the whole "web" paradigm.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, since presumably people will have a Flash option for quite some time, at least on their non-mobile devices.

JRH

So if Flash is so bad, why is Apple developing a "Flash Alternative"? Maybe HTML 5 is not proving to meet all of Apple's needs?

http://www.tgdaily.com/software-features/49694-apples-gianduia-is-not-a-...

Could it be that Steve would rather have you pay $1.99 for an app to play a game on the iPad/iPhone/iPod instead of playing free flash games from Miniclips.com

Greed is not always so good!

CShockr, for sure greed is not always so good. Just ask all the U.S. employees at Adobe who are no longer employees thanks to S.N. over there sending work Bangalore way. They wanted to get paid market rates over there, and now they have nothing thanks to the bottom basement wages in S.N.'s home country!

First let me say this: Joe, you know I'm with you 100%. Great post.

I realize we're talking mobile browser support for Flash but...I need to talk about the app tangent. The idea that Apple is worried about a 3rd party layer holding up their progress is ridiculous.

If they launch new hardware, a few hundred thousand apps in the app store won't be able to take advantage of that hardware's new functionality (until reversioned) which puts them at the mercy of the app developers to "keep up". That's as much of a "3rd Party Layer" as Flash. If Flash isn't able to support a certain hardware capability, Adobe would have the option to release an update to stay relevant for their development community, or...just wait until their next version. Ultimately, it would be the public's decision not to buy an app that doesn't take advantage of some new functionality...just as they would with older apps built in Objective C. And then, up to the developer to decide what they want to build their apps in. Flash or Ob C. The best development tool would ultimately win out. Wouldn't it?

The only real conclusion that can be drawn here is that what Job's has outlined in his letter isn't REALLY his motivation. My guess? Apple is still a business, it's completely financial. If they can block Flash on their browsers they can make cheaper devices (less memory and processing power), cheaper devices to build=lower cost to purchase and therefore more sold=more profit.

The app/Flash issue is just an extension of this. They made their bed by blocking Flash on their mobile browsers, they'd appear hypocritical if they didn't also block it to build apps, punching holes in their already weak argument.

I think there is a big misconception about HTML5 by the author and the commenters of this article- it's not HTML5 that's replacing Flash- Javascript is. HTML5 just allows everything we are already doing with our markup to validate. But the real star of the show and usurper of Flash is Java.

jQuery (and the many jQuery plugins) are becoming standard fare for websites, because it's widely supported across all platforms, including mobile. Java can now replace many of Flash's uses and deliver the wow factor without sacrificing SEO, browser support, and CMS integration. Sure, Flash still has a rightful place in the desktop-based broadband web experience, but I think force-full screen websites' days are numbered.

As far as mobile, I do agree that Flash will become obselete, based on the amount of extra processing power required and instability of Flash. Everyone who uses a smartphone knows how precious battery life is and I don't blame Jobs for abandoned Flash for mobile devices.

Great points Jeremy, especially the part about it being up to the developer to "keep up" with the hardware.

There are several websites that I built using AS2.0, 3+ years ago, that are working just fine, that I continue to support as needed, when needed. Those sites are certainly not the latest and greatest, but the meet the functional needs of the client. If the client does not need 3D or photo upload, or any of the other recent additions, why should they spend the money to overhaul their site each time a new version of Flash is released? This logic applies to any piece of software.

And also to touch on your comments on being financially motivated, the other probably reason to block Flash is that, via Flash, users can play games, access other rich content, listen to music, or almost anything else an "app" can do, through the browser, without having to go through the App Store, where Apple can take a cut of any purchased items.

From a business perspective, I can see how this makes sense for Apple, I just hope the development community, and the end consumer rejects such a gatekeeper metaphor, given the other, more "open" smart phone and tablet PC options that are available, or will soon be available.

I'd be curious as to your answer to the most valid of Jobs' point:

Give us a good example of Flash working on ANY handset. Why should Apple agree to allowing flash until Adobe can show it?

Here is a good 6 minute collage of Ryan Stewart, an Adobe evangelist, showcasing a variety of Flash components, from a variety of content verticals, successfully running on the Nexus One, running Android.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7XJI4NN7k

So now that Adobe has shown it, it shouldn't be long before Apple hops on the bandwagon right? :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Apple ever giving Flash a legitimate chance on the iPhone or iPad. They simply dismissed it from the get-go, thus re-enforcing the suspicion that its more about controlling content / maximizing revenue, than it is about the alleged short-comings of the Flash player.

@Jeremy:

Of course this is about business! Apple (and every other company in the world) is engaged in the business of making money; they have a legal obligation to their shareholders to do so. Expecting them to do otherwise is at best naive.

Clearly, Apple has made the calculation that annoying the group of developers mostly represented on this comment thread is worth whatever long-term gain they will get by reducing Flash's role in the web ecosystem. They may be wrong about it, but I'll bet they aren't.

I think Joe is right in that the only hope for people who want Flash to survive is that the public rejects the gatekeeper role Apple wants to play. I think that would be a great thing, actually, but unfortunately the public is very distracted by shiny things and it seems unlikely.

Finally, it is worth noting that Jobs has gone to unusual (for the CEO of a very large company) lengths to publicly discuss Apple's reasoning. Compared to the behind-closed-doors shenanigans that often take place in the rough and tumble tech world (see: Microsoft vs everyone, Intel vs AMD, Nokia vs. everyone, etc.), his candor is refreshing, whether you like his ultimate conclusion or not.

JRH -

I wouldn't call Jobs' letter/opinion candor... As someone who has worked closely with Flash for the past decade, I know that most of his claims are false, or misleading at best.

I don't fault Jobs for wanting to make as much money for his company as possible, but as someone who believes in the power and possibility of Flash, I hope he doesn't succeed in his campaign to rid the world of Flash.

As much as I, or anyone else wants to admit it or not, Apple is a major player, if not the most widely recognized player (thanks to Apple's brilliant brand strategy), in the mobile/tablet industry, at least for right now.

And for that, I think Adobe should be open to working with Apple, making certain concessions if needed, to address the *legitimate* concerns Apple might have, and ensure that the Flash platform not only survives, but continues to evolves to be a better, more stable, and more powerful platform for all mediums, including mobile.

This bitter war between Apple and Adobe is not good for anyone. End users are being denied content, developers are being forced to choose a side, businesses are being forced to choose which users they want to reach, (assuming they don't have the bank roll to build and deploy multiple versions of a component or application, for each platform), Apple is seeing a reduction in the amount of device sales, and Adobe is running the risk of not selling as many copies of Flash in the future. Its lose-lose for all.

I think this thread is a very interesting discussion, and many people have raised some very interesting points.

My two cents:
Yes, Apple is a company that is interested in making money. But what hasn't really been said is that the Apple business plan has always been based on making products that are simple to use, reliable, and sexy.

When Apple launched the iPhone, they completely re-imagined the role that mobile phones play in our lives. When the Jesus phone launched, there were plenty of people bashing it... And today, the mobile industry is cluttered with iPhone wannabes, and former failed iPhone killers. When Jobs says show him a mobile phone running flash, he doesn't just mean a montage of flash simply running on a Nexus One, he means running with acceptable battery life, stability, etc.

When Apple introduced the iPad, they followed the same process of re-inventing how people interact with computers. They look at how people use their computers for entertainment. How do they use them at home. How do they interact with them? What form factor makes the most sense? How important is the keyboard? How important are stability and battery life? Screen resolution? What works, what doesn't. And then they built a new device based on those findings. A device they have spent years developing and honing, and will continue to refine as they go forward. A device with 12 hours of batter life.

Unfortunately in the cases of the iPhone and iPad, Flash just doesn't pass muster. It is built on a mouse interface, not multi-touch. It is a memory and battery hog. And it has stability issues, all of which are unacceptable in Apple's view of functionality, especially since there are other options out there.

To say that Steve Jobs and his Infinite Loop minions are anti-flash purely because of money is to fail to recognize what makes Apple Apple. Jobs sees HTML5 as a way to bring rich media content to users without sacrificing battery life, processor use, or stability. Can flash get there, yes. Does flash do things HTML5 / Java don't? Yes. Does flash meet Apple standards while doing all these wonderful things? I think it is pretty clear that it does not.

Joe, you said that Apple is seeing sales drop? Not sure where you got that... yes, there is the annual dip in iPhone sales that precedes the launch of the next iPhone OS and device in June, but that is always followed by a massive increase in sales as soon as the new iPhone hits stores. As for the iPad- well, read here: http://mashable.com/2010/05/06/ipad-netbook-market/ Apple continues to enjoy double-digit growth, and by all estimates, will continue to this year.

My point to all of this is that Apple is looking at more than just capability, they are also looking at functionality and stability. Their entire brand is built on simple and reliable user experience.

Flash is not.

Mike,

I for one, have no intentions of buying an iPad, partly based on principle, partly based on how limited the device is. I have also heard of plenty people returning their iPad, as it doesn't live up to their expectation, primarily with regard to web surfing, and all the missing/denied Flash content. So even if its just a handful of people, including myself (which I don't believe it is)... its still a dip in device sales.

And to address your comments about battery life, stability, performance...don't blame the technology, blame the lazy or inexperienced developers. A well built app in Flash, will be lighter, faster, and more stable than a poorly build app from Objective C, and vice versa.

You say "Jobs sees HTML5 as a way to bring rich media content to users without sacrificing battery life, processor use, or stability", but do you really want someone else deciding what content you can and cannot access on your behalf? For as long as its been around, the internet has been full of great content, crash-prone content, and even malicious content, but I would never want to give up the choice to decide for myself what I want to consume.

Using the speaker phone, watching video with audio, even turning up the screen brightness, or anything else that one might do on their iPhone will decrease the battery life...at least when compared to letting the device sit idle on the desk, so should all those features be scrapped too, in the interest of prioritizing battery life?

If one app chews through the battery life more than another, I, and I alone should be the one to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze... and if I determine an app sucks, regardless of my reason, I can uninstall it. Can't we let the market decide what apps thrive, and which ones fall on their face, regardless of what technology was used in development.

Finally, who is Apple to decide how important a keyboard is, when they should have included at least one USB port on the iPad, and again... let the end user decide what peripherals they feel are "important".

If the mobile Flash player for the iPhone has security flaws that can be exploited beyond the developer's or user's control, then Adobe should work with Apple to address those, but in my opinion, all the other reasons Jobs' provided for why Flash is not part of the iPhone/iPad are purely subjective, and not things that he or Apple should be regulating anyhow, and I hope the general public and the development community skewer them for it, in the best interest of all of us.

Joe,

While you may not have intentions of buying an iPad, there are plenty of people who do. Millions in fact. Given your level of expertise as a programmer, I suspect you are nowhere near the iPad's target market.

In terms of choice, I believe Apple has been walking a fine line for over three decades, sometimes well, others not as much. The line is between creating a user experience that is intuitive, stable, and predictable, and providing enough choice to keep users happy.

I think the PC vs. Mac paradigm is a great way to see this play out. Anyone and their mom can make parts for a P.C., not so on a mac. Same with software. By being selective, Apple has far more control over the user experience- arguably one of the most vital elements in their brand positioning. Apple has made the conscious choice that a machine that doesn't crash and simply works is what people really want... and I think they are right. PC's on the other hand, while infinitely more stable than they used to be, are still prone to crashes.

Windows 7 was my idea- and Steve Job's idea like 10 years ago.

I do not feel in any way limited by Apple's decision not to implement flash on their mobile platforms. Any ill feelings that I have are reserved for the content providers who for whatever reason refuse to provide content in a format that is compatible with my iphone, as well as the 20 million plus other people who are using iPhones- and the million plus iPad owners.

I think that anytime change arrives when we don't feel ready for it, it is difficult. But the fact is that change has arrived. The fact that we are reading and commenting on this blog means that we live and breathe in a dynamic industry where we must adapt to innovation. Like it or not, the iPad is innovative. Like the iPhone before it, the iPad is changing the game. If you don't like them, don't buy them. But I think it is foolish for anyone in our line of work not to be able to recognize when the game changes and adjust accordingly.

I fully understand that you may not believe that the game is changing. But it is. Just as Apple changed the music industry with the iPod and the mobile phone / PDA industry with the iPhone.The iPad will change the way that tens of millions of consumers interact with the digital world.

All of this back and forth about what is right, about choices, about who is in this just for money (who isn't?), about what company deserves what, it is all missing the point.

We live in a consumer driven society, and consumers want Apple products. Other companies want to emulate Apple products. Apple is a trend leader, and they are pushing a trend of not adopting flash for their mobile devices. Right or wrong- it is what it is.

So the real question is not are you going to buy an ipad, but are you going to give your customers what they need to stay relevant in a rapidly changing digital environment? Are you going to recommend that your clients stick with flash when all indicators are that end users are changing the way they consume digital content- even if it is being driven by huge companies like Apple and Google? Are you going to tell them that this cool feature that only flash can provide is more valuable than the people that will never see it because they are on a mobile device that doesn't support flash? Are you going to recommend building for the future, or the past?

Based on your comments Mike, it seems pretty clear that you are a Mac fan-boy, and Apple/Jobs can do no wrong.

But to answer your question, I am just a work-from-home developer, with no clout or pull compared to Apple, Adobe, or Google. All I can do is try to give me clients the best product I can, that meets their needs.

Some of those clients may want to deliver information quickly, and to the point, without concern for the brand experience, and for them, I would rarely, if ever... recommend a Flash based solution, but others still want to give their user's that cutting edge, emotional experience, and for them... Flash has always been the best solution.

Now that a million or so iPads are in circulation (which is still less than one third of one percent of all end-user, full screen computers), my clients will need to decide if delivering the best user experience is worth leaving those users behind, or if its more important to reach as many people as possible, and sacrifice the experience.

If I thought HTML 5 and/or JS was an equivalent alternate option, that could do everything Flash could do, I would be all over it, but it can't, at least not yet. So for now I will branch out, hedge my bets, ramp up on new technologies, and try to make sure I can still remain relevant in the world of software development, while still providing Flash development services where it makes sense, for as long as it makes sense.

What else can I do?

It is true that I have a deep respect for Apple's ability to create a completely unified brand- from top to bottom- product to promotion.

Now, that being said, as much as I admire the company and their products, they are starting to loose site of the ethos that brought the company from their 1984 commercial introducing the mac to today. That root for the small-guy, substance over flash (pardon the pun) approach. Charisma is being usurped by arrogance, and that sucks.

Honest question because I genuinely don't fully know the limitations of HTML 5.0 paired with Java yet- but in your opinion, how limited is it? Is it truly limited, or have people just not pushed the boundaries of what is possible?

Also, I've seen your work. You may actually "work- from-home," but in my opinion the quality of your stuff can stand against any work-from-an-office or work-from-an-agency guy or gal out there.

-Mike
(Apple fan boy)

This thread was going great until Mike admitted to not knowing what he was talking about...

Thanks Mike,

I'm not an expert on HTML 5 either, but I have done a lot of research lately, and while the examples of what is possible are promising, I personally have yet to see anything that rivals the top tier Flash work that people have been creating with Flash 9+ for the past 2 years...

As I understand it, they are still figuring out what the final HTML 5 standards will be, so they may improve upon it yet, but once the standards are set, it will immediately start to become antiquated compared to what the latest and greatest Flash player is capable of at that time.

And being that Flash is plug-in/player based, which is one of the gripes Apple has with Flash, but also one of its greatest strengths when it comes to quickly ramping up a new standard across 96%+ of personal computers. Non-plug-in based technologies, such as JS or HTML, have to be communally accepted by IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc... and we all know how well that goes over, so I can only imagine it will get worse, as the languages grow more complex and more capable.

Great editorial Joe.
I, too have been focusing on the Flash platform since the old days when you and I were using the old "tellTarget stuff" at Fuel Brothers. All this time, the pace of change Flash has kept has been much faster than HTML or JavaScript. I can't imagine that will change just because of the new tags being proposed in HTML 5.

I've spent way too much time reading editorials like this and reading comments from people who really have a strong opinion but no real knowledge or stake. People who take the bait and cite battery life (as though that would be an issue if you could swap out your battery) and "it's only made to do mouse overs and can't work with multitouch" and other uninformed drivel.

ActionScript is a very good language; I think it is better than JavaScript or Objective-C and I would have loved to use it to make binary applications for the iPad. It certainly can build apps that work with multitouch input. It can be hooked up to physical sensors like load cells or accelerometers. It has packages, modules, interfaces, garbage collection, reflection, generics, strong-typing, dynamic-typing, and a host of other features that are very nice to program with. It can communicate with binary programs written in other languages. It works great to do in-game interfaces for console games (with ScaleForm). ActionScript is just a modern programming language, arguably more modern than Objective-C, and with arguably better frameworks than Cocoa. Unfortunately I can't build an app for the iPad with ActionScript. There is absolutely no technical reason that I can't, only legal reasons. I ordered an iPad when I thought I would be able to use the iPhone publisher for Flash CS5 to build apps, for profit or fun, that would run on my device. Now that I have the iPad, every time I use it is feels like it is so locked down and hamstrung by Apple that I wish I didn't spend the money on it. I'm constantly having to run over to my computer to see what the website I'm on is supposed to look like, that I might as well just use my laptop in the first place. I'm emailing myself documents back and forth so I can "edit" them on the iPad. The only thing it does well is act as a touch screen. If I could hook it up to be an input/display device for a real computer, it would be useful. As it is, it pretty much sucks.

The bottom line for me is that Apple has started consistently making decisions that make me hate the company. I'm still using a mac to type this on, I still have an iPhone, but I no longer feel good about that... Yes, the devices and OSX are still really great, in spite of the poor demeanor of the entity that makes them. I no longer enjoy using the devices, and no longer recommend them to friends or family. I've been a huge Apple fan since I started programming in Logo on an Apple ][c when I was 8. It has taken a lot to engender such ill will in me. But I hate Apple now. The Apple logo I used to proudly display on my car started making me feel like I was hoisting a swastika, so I removed it.

Unfortunately, after such a long time of being happy about the company and evangalizing them, I'm beholden to Apple as well. I'm entrenched in the technology so much I can't really cut them out and expect to support my family. Like an abused spouse, I just can't get away. To keep up professionally I have to build apps in Objective-C, because for moble, the iTunes App Store is pretty much the only game in town (hopefully not for long, Android). In the past month I've had clients stop production mid way on large Flash RIA and have me redo them in JS/HTML/CSS just because the client read Jobs' "open letter". I can't avoid doing those things or I can't make money, and all because of (ostensibly) one man's decisions. I don't like JavaScript, but clients want things to work on their iPhones. I don't particularly like Objective-C but it is the only language (okay, C/C++ excluded) that I'm "allowed" to use to build something I can sell in the iTunes App store. I love OSX, but hate the actions of the company that produces it.

It shouldn't be like this. I really don't care if Apple wants a 30% cut of my sales, I just want to use a better programming language and authoring tools to build the thing I'm selling. When I use a web browser on a device I own, I want to be able to install a plugin so I can read the menu on the website of the Mom & Pop restaurant down the street. I want to buy an app for the iDevice I own that has cuss words and babes in bikinis. I want Steve Jobs to STFU and stop being such a fascist. We should buy things from companies because we like what they do, what they stand for, and how they do business, not because they're the only game in town, or because they own the medium.

Well said Sean.

As a programmer that I have always respected, I'm glad to hear we are of the same mind-set. But like you said, apparently it doesn't matter what we think anymore, Apple will be doing the thinking for us from now on.

With that said, I guess I just need to apply a thick layer of Loreal foundation, to cover my bruises, and get to work mastering JS and HTML.

:(

This is certainly an interesting article. Prior to 2009, I was a flash designer/developer for about 6 years working on solutions for Toyota, IBM and Anhueser-Busch to name a few.

However, I began to see the drawbacks of utilizing flash for online development towards the end of 2008, particularly in regards to SEO. And I think that while some still today do not care about SEO, the online space has changed drastically from what it was even 2 years ago. I think for most businesses, be it service or product based, having a solid SEO'd website is critical today.

The fact is my office is being flooded with work from clients who spent a great amount of money on their flash websites, only to discover that they can't be found online unless the user knows the specific name or URL of the company. Whether we agree to love or hate flash, this previous point must count for something.

You have a good point, Ryan, and I think any good designer or developer will welcome a constructive conversation about the SEO implications of any interactive implementation as a part of an overall strategy. Complex JavaScript is as guilty of wrecking SEO as Flash, as is making a big image map based website.

Of course mobile apps are a different ballgame, as are desktop apps. Apple is not only putting a gigantic, illegal to remove, wall around their conception of what a mobile app is and how it can be made, but they're also pwning the sale of adds within that screenspace. That's right, iAds takes direct aim at basically the mobile app equivalent of google ads, google analytics, or any home baked analytics solution. You cannot sell an ad in your app that is sold through the iTunes app store, unless it is run through the iAds border patrol, and there are serious looking Apple minders watching every move your app makes to ensure you're not working with any Apple competitors (aka Google) to gather analytics about the users of the app you wrote. In friking objective-c. Not featuring any pictures of scantily-clad women. That they could pull at any time if their operatives catch you speaking out against heir furor Jobs. It's the Xth Reich I tell you!

Reading Jobs' words about open software is the worst part. In some debates it's bad form to compare the opposing side with Nazis, but I do it about every time with this one, and I do it lucidly and intentionally because it fits so closely (albeit in a Tron sort of way). It is a complex issue and the real technical components are above the heads of the majority of rather technically savvy people, so finding allegorical references is pretty necessary, though it should certainly be supported by examples and real-world results.

I commend you, Joe, for writing this editorial, and for engaging in some of the most elevated comment threads I've seen on this issue (and I'll admit to having read way, way too many of these threads). I also commend the egotist for some great coverage on this issue, and for highlighting Denver's relevance in a world that certain costal cities like to think they have a lock on.

For the me the issue comes down to ALL plugins, not flash.

Once they allow flash, will they have to allow silverlight? And java? I dont want my iPad or iPhone bogged down by intensive plugins that aren't necessary. Im not sure how any truly objective flash developer won't admit that it crashes browsers more than any other technology. Chrome's independent threading was almost exclusively to solve flash crashing in one tab preventing from crashing all the other tabs.

How many times do I have to say it... poor programming techniques cause the browser to crash, not the programming language itself.

Anonymous, don't worry, I'm certainly not going to force you to install any of those evil plugins, or "bog you down," man. That'd be wrong.

Mobile Safari crashes quite a bit without any plugins to attribute the cause to. Maybe you can turn off JavaScript too; I hear it bogs you down as well, and has other problems you've been told to be afraid of.

You're right that Chrome's independent threading is really, really nice. Who is stopping you from installing Chrome on your iPad? Oh, yeah, Apple is.

Excellent post Joe!

I found this video a few days ago that pits HTML 5 vs Flash, and I think its important to watch because it shows the current state of HTML 5. With people saying how Flash would drain battery life because CPU utilization is high. Well, HTML 5 actually uses more so the point is moot.

Html 5 vs Flash

One other thing, for many Mac users, Flash might perform poorly even when playing video because Apple, up until just recently, didn't allow low level access api's for the GPU's. And even now they only gave it up for 3 of the graphics cards in which Adobe turned out an update within 6 days. Adobe sure is lazy!

Flash Player Gala

And one thing to JRH, as you say Apple builds their systems (Desktop/Laptop) to be best optimized and provide an excellent experience for their users, then why does Windows 7 outperform OSX on Apple's own hardware?

Linux vs OSX vs Windows 7

One more thought, I am not understanding why everything has to be HTML 5 vs Flash, why can't they both coexist? I mean HTML 4 and Flash do now, there are several applications where Flash makes calls to Javascript, just look at Google finance. Adobe is making great tools for HTML 5 in Dreamweaver which shows that they see both as platforms of the future, not just Flash.

@graphex: actually, every site that doesnt have an html site (that just says 'you have to download to view this site') IS forcing me to use and download the plugin to view their site. see silverlight for nbc olympics. Now, instead, apple is making THEM change their content.

@mease: you still didnt deny that flash obviously crashes browsers, you simply put it on the programmer. if poor programming is to blame it's odd how so many flash programmers so poor then... i dont want them programming for my phone, whoever they are.

Anonymous (coward) writes: "Now, instead, apple is making THEM change their content."

Yeah, thats Apple forcing people to do stuff, and it is wrong. The mom & pop restaurant down the street is gonna keep their menu in Flash because that's what they can afford to do. Why should Apple force them to do anything? Why should Apple prevent me from looking at the content they put on their server? Apple should not be the driver of these things. I wouldn't let Steve Jobs drive my car, much less my industry. They should by no means have that kind of power. No company should. They're welcome to lead by innovating, and that's what they used to do—by in large—but no company should use an iron fist to control through force of lawyer and writ of license.

I'm less concerned about NBC having bucks to do a partnership with Microsoft to do olympic coverage with silverlight than I am about Apple not letting me install any software I want to on my phone. Big media partnerships are still going to occur, whether you can see the results on your iphone or not. The walled-in app store model is a temporary cash cow, but it isn't sustainable. People eventually want to ride rides that aren't available at Disneyland, and a roller coaster is nothing for someone with a pilot's license.

did you seriously try to make a case for a restaurant to have a flash menu? that's why you're unqualified to develop for mobile.

Why should a restaurant not have a Flash website, or even a Flash component such as a menu? It doesn't matter what type of entity you are, depending on your goals and objectives, sometimes Flash is the right solution, many times it might not be.

While I agree that most people will visit a restaurant website for either the address of the nearest location, a phone number, and/or to view the menu offerings, but I also believe that dining out is often about the experience.

So if you can keep in mind the quick objectives of most users, while also delivering a compelling experience that captures the essence of the dining experience, you win.

Chipotle.com has always been a great example of this blend of form and function that works, while also driving the brand.

And your argument that arguing for Flash in a certain vertical, makes one unqualified to develop for mobile makes absolutely no sense at all...

But the very things you said you appreciate about your iPod and iPhone are directly due to the way Apple has prevented those platforms from being contaminated by lowest-common-denominator apps and confusing, buggy, amateur experiences.

They have built a reputation for simplicity and reliability, do you think they are going to gamble with that?

People wanting choice can choose another phone as far as I'm concerned. People wanting porn (and we are not talking just titties, but some of it is extremely ugly, violent and debasing) can get it by choosing another phone as far as I'm concerned.

I'm glad there is at least company that sets itself apart from the pack.

And also, don't forget, Flash is not even available for the iPhone yet (many times delayed) so Apple isn't keeping it off, Adobe is. Adobe has not been nice to Apple over the last 5-6 years and now they are whining when they get their just deserts? Just my opinion of course.

Rosswell...

First off, as a current user of an iPhone, I have seen plenty of apps that I would consider "confusing, buggy, and amateur", so that argument holds no water.

Secondly, The iPhone includes a *full* web browser, which is used to browse the web... but all Flash content on the web is blocked by the iPhone. So how can you say that Adobe is the one keeping it off the device?

Finally, Apple is creating a slippery slope. It seems you are content with the governing body of Apple, as they have yet to strip you of anything you personally desire, so since it has yet to adversely affect you, why should you care?

What if Apple decided to block certain phone numbers, simply because Jobs decides for you, that they are not numbers/people you should be talking to anyhow...

Ultimately, you are right, people have the choice to use another device if they want something as wild and crazy as freedom of choice. And I expect a large number of people will make that choice, hopefully forcing Apple to cave to the demand of the market.

But we shall see...

Anonymous, my point about the flash menu was not that there was any case for Flash having been used whatsoever, but the fact that is _was_ used. It is an existing site, this fictitious "mom & pop restaurant," perhaps a vestigial structure, but a part of the internet I use. The web has been around for a while now, and to suddenly say that everyone has to update their 2000-era website is actually kind of sad. Not every website needs to be updated every week, month, year or even decade. In fact Flash holds up better than most technologies so old, and I enjoy it when I run into a random website that has been around for over 5 years. There is nothing wrong with preserving history, but I do take issue with one company trying to rewrite it.

Roswell.... what was it Jobs recently said, "Freedom from porn." What a twisted way to use the word, "Freedom." http://gawker.com/5539717/steve-jobs-offers-world-freedom-from-porn
I also appreciate your description of what you could find online if you have a browser with the evil Flash player: "(and we are not talking just titties, but some of it is extremely ugly, violent and debasing)." I was unaware of that, and I am certainly appalled that it took this long for a company as brave as Apple to step up and protect us like that.

Certainly the point about choosing another phone is valid. When I bought my phone, I didn't hate Apple like I do now. I would make a different decision today given Apple's recent behavior. I would love to also buy a general purpose, multi-touch-driven computer that doesn't run on a hamstrung operating system designed for a phone with illegal-to-tear-down walls around it preventing me from using it the way I choose. If you know of any choices I have in that regard, please let me know. If Apple provided a device like that, I would forgive the closed-ness of the iPad. If another company provided a choice like that, I would immediately sell my iPad (or throw it through the window of an Apple store in an homage to the old Discount Tire Co. commercials).

I've wanted a good touch screen computer for many years now, but the 'curated computing' experience the iPad offers is not my cup of tea. I absolutely want more choices than are currently available, and I really hope they come soon. The iPad could have been good, but it is not. It is an "uncanny valley" of something that could be great, if not for poor decisions relating to the legality of certain uses of it, the restriction of its capabilities, and the demeanor of the man running the company that makes it.

You are so wrong in so many ways. Good luck.

As a flash developer, I get asked frequently "Is Flash going to go away".
Its at least a component of approximately 1 in 3 sites currently on the net- 3 billion or so at a guess.
And every release from Adobe rocks the house. They will continue to innovate and from what I understand are working towards 'supporting Apple' even though Apple aren't reciprocating.
And yes Apple have good reasons to not support Flash, but closing your eyes doesn't make a problem disappear.
The short answer is Flash ain't going anywhere but moving on up in my book.

Remember "Fake Steve Jobs" Dan Lyons? He's got a great post about Apple/Steve Jobs that brings up some familiar points:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2010/05/20/sayona...

juega y gana grandes premios

Bill Gates never said "640k ought to be enough for anyone." That was proven long ago to be an urban legend.