Flash vs. HTML5

May 10, 2011  |  Infographics

Flash vs. HTML5

Design firm Periscopic takes a look at the Flash versus HTML5 debate and some considerations you should make if you're deciding which one to use in your projects. The main conclusions: Flash lets you reach the widest audience with the drawback of not working on some mobile devices; HTML5 is still developing.

Which one are you gonna pick for your next web project?

[Periscopic | Thanks, Kim]

202 Comments

  • Pretty picture, but what web project is “targeted” at 100% of the internet using market? Basic customer needs analysis (from marketing 101) says you should look at the requirements of your target customers, not the whole market.

    What if paying customers disproportionately use HTML 5?
    What if the target audience is disproportionately mobile?
    What if the target audience is disproportionately social customers, rather than corporates?

    Very naive analysis….!

    • I agree. My target audience disproportionately does not use IE for anything, tends to stay on the bleeding edge of tech, and 30% of my daily hits are mobile. I’m a flash writer from way back, but I’m finally moving away because HTML5 is letting me reach MY audience better.

    • @Jack, the statistics listed above would relate to all target audiences. 99% of browsers support Flash, 40% support HTML5. Even if you were to find that your audience only uses Chrome 10 (the best HTML5 browser) then you would still not be able to reach more people than if you used Flash.

      The only scenario where it doesn’t make sense to use Flash (from an audience accessibility point of view) is with the iOS. However, if that is your audience, then you should develop an app. HTML5 performs very poorly in Safari on the iPad/iPhone.

      • Slow But Effective June 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm

        Strangely, the graphic author assumes that browsers correlate with usage. If the 40% of browsers that support HTML5 have 95% of market share*, then 95% of potential users can use HTML5 apps.

    • Agreed 100%.

    • Nice and correct!

  • Agree, presenting more about target audiences would sharpen the graphic – maybe this could be version two – showing different software options for different audiences.

    But I think this is a really important issue. We have had lots of projects recently where clients say – we would like something that is interactive like flash, however don’t use flash as we want it running on an iPAD, but actually most of our audience uses IE. We’ve ended up some projects developing two parallel versions – in flash and processing.js – to get round this issue.

  • Erm, isn’t this just a (pretty) snapshot in time? We should be looking at the trends surely – which technologies are gaining/losing market share?

  • oPadraigh May 10, 2011 at 6:59 am

    Not Flash in any case. And the 99% support “some” Flash, but not “the” Flash.

    BTW I really enjoy my daily FlowingData – thanks for the good work.

  • Trends would be important. I’m considering a project which might not be fully realized for 2 years. Where will HTML5 be in 2 years?

  • Nearly all browsers support Flash but I think we are missing the point here. Flash is a “plug-in” not an embedded technology. Like many of you commenting here, I work in interactive yet have had many issues with the installation of the correct version of Flash and other plug-in woes. I think we need more relevant data. In particular we need more data relevant to the user experience.

  • What about Silverlight? Are we intentionally ignore Microsoft from the visualization?

  • Interesting piece – but like others, I think it’s only a (small) piece of the puzzle. I continually find that it is other factors that influence my decision on this choice. E.g. right now I’m working on material where rapid (very rapid) development is absolutely critical. Working in Flex/Flash allows for very rapid, dependable development. HTML5 is just too clumsy (for now).

  • Today I got an Ipad at work. So i tried some HTML5 Canvas on it. I was so impatient to test my Js animations engines on this cool device !

    My best perf was 2fps, no matter the demo I tested. Horrible !

    I tested some Android stuff in flash, it was so much better. I mean, really really much !

    Maybe it’s time to stop the fashion wave and see the reality : Flash, will soon be the best choice for performance on mobile.
    With MoleHill, Flash will use GPU, even on mobile devices. We will have some awesome things to do. And we will do them better with flash.
    Today i realised that never, at any moment, HTML5 and canvas were “flashkillers”. Many lies have been told to us.

    We will do some interesting things, menus, maybe some basic games, or small apps with canvas… For IOs device, as long as flash will not be on it.

    And I will use flash on other devices, cause this is the best choice to do !

    Ipad is don’t worth it’s price. I dont even imagine how it could be on Iphone.
    My choice i made.
    I only encourage peoples (users and devs) to test canvas animations on apple devices. I bet they will be as disappointed as I am.

  • Definitely a case-by-case scenario… In dataviz/charting we’ve seen varying results simply based on how much data is present or how complex a visualization is. We went ahead and began supporting SVG in addition to HTML5 Canvas, because of the various strengths and weaknesses of the frameworks (from today: http://www.zingchart.com/blog/2011/05/10/zingchart-now-rendering-charts-in-html5-canvas-svg-vml-and-flash/)

    This topic also begs the question: if HTML5, then SVG or Canvas? For which I’ll defer to the IE Blog for further reading http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/04/22/thoughts-on-when-to-use-canvas-and-svg.aspx.

  • This visualization misses the point, which is that, by using HTML5, you can also reach those who don’t have HTML5 (or flash, for that matter).

    • huh?

      • The basics of HTML5 are compatible with HTML4, and the rest can fail very gracefully. It’s pretty straightforward to detect support for the HTML5 specific features, especially with tools like Modernizr. If a page detects that it’s running in an older browser, it can disable things that won’t work, or load shims and other compatibility helpers. What’s especially important is the granularity. The page can be very specific about the features it’s looking for, and can provide alternatives for only what is not supported. (e.g. If native File API support is not detected, a Flash-based file loader can be used if possible, one which depends on a standalone library and not require the entire site to be Flash as well.) This is a much more future-proof solution than relying on a single proprietary plugin.

        If a Flash-based site is loaded on a browser that doesn’t have Flash, or even the correct version of Flash in some cases, then all that’s shown is the “Please upgrade Flash” notice. Sure, the developers can make an alternate HTML-only version and have the page show that instead, but then they might as well just make it entirely in HTML to begin with.

  • Three words… Search Engine Optimization. Don’t build sites in Flash. Use JQuery and do the same thing much lighter… HTML5 will roll out soon enough. This info graphic is cool, but it’s not totally accurate when you think of “Which one is right for your project”… Also consider the timing. Flash has been around for at least 10 years while HTML5 is still in it’s infancy stage… of course it’s more widely supported.

    • James Vanderbilt July 13, 2011 at 11:25 pm

      Do the same thing as Flash only much lighter with jQuery??? Haven’t used Flash much huh? I do both. jQuery is capable of doing some of the most basic animations that Flash can do, but it can’t touch Flash on CPU load or on download size. I can do all sorts of animations in a few KB in Flash that I can’t do without loading xxKB worth of jQuery JS. This isn’t subjective–measure it and be surprised how much CPU and bandwidth it takes to do simple fades and slides in jQuery vs Flash.

  • This might be interesting but I cannot even read it because it all blends together. So any point made in the chart is pointless.

    • Telluride May 17, 2011 at 9:26 am

      Yes, the low contrast between text and background is an eye-killer. I’m sure it looked pretty, though, to young eyes on a big screen :o)

  • So, the graphic counts only the iPad users of the iOS browsers (ignoring the 80 million iPhone users) but counts 2 billion users of other browsers. Likewise, it has IE8 and IE9, while IE6 and IE7 still have a much bigger share of the IE market (according to Arstechnica’s web browser market shares).

    There’s way too many comparisons of unlike categories in this chart to make any of them useful.

  • It’s not really possible to make a relevant comparison between Flash and HTML5. First, HTML5 as it’s commonly discussed isn’t one thing in the same way Flash is… it’s a combination of HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript.

    Plus, there’s no clear-cut way of saying a browser supports HTML5. The standard is still in flux; in principle ALL HTML is HTML5; no browser supports all HTML5 tags and capabilities; etc.

    The question isn’t really about whether you should use Flash vs. HTML5; it’s about whether you should be using a proprietary plug-in technology controlled by a single company vs. using the open standards web browsers are (supposed to be) built upon. Flash isn’t the web.

    I don’t even get the point of the iOS distinction. Is it referring to native apps? Doesn’t seem that way. Seeing it broken out like this makes me skeptical of the objectivity of the entire infographic.

    Let’s be honest: everyone who works in the web has a horse in this race. If you’ve poured all of your efforts into mastering Flash development, you’re going to want to see Flash survive and thrive. If you’ve committed to open standards, you want Flash to die, now. You can probably guess which camp I’m in. And I think I know which camp Periscopic is in.

    • @room34: We’re committed to open standards. We develop in both HTML5 and Flash. The point of making this infographic was to address a common request we have been getting to develop more data visualizations in HTML5 because of an assumption that HTML5 will allow access to a greater audience.

      The impetus of the project doesn’t come across in the infographic as well as it does in our companion blog post: http://now.periscopic.com/2011/05/our-research-into-flash-and-html5-which-one-is-right-for-your-project/

      Our point of view is to use the best technology for the situation, regardless of whether or not a single company developed it.

      • I checked out your blog post after posting my comment, and I agree it gives more meaningful context. I may not have been inclined to comment if I’d seen it first.

        However, ultimately I think it’s important to seriously question whether Flash is EVER the best technology for the situation. (But that’s where my bias comes out.) I know that there are some things that (right now) can only be done, or can only be done well, in Flash. But I’m skeptical that those things that make Flash unique are really beneficial (beyond being… well… “Flashy”), given the downsides of using Flash.

        I’ll concede that this is, for now, very much an argument of pragmatism vs. idealism. But things are changing. I’m taking the long view, that ultimately we’re moving towards a world where Flash is not the dominant tool for interactive content on the web, and that the web will be better for it. But that can only happen if web designers and developers stop pushing the technology despite the growing popularity of devices that don’t support Flash (or don’t support it well) and the growing availability of the open technologies that will eventually supplant it.

  • wellington May 13, 2011 at 9:15 am

    I really don’t know what “1% of browsers support iOS” means.

    iOS is an operating system, not an open standard, nor a propiertary plugin. even if google started smoking crack and wanted to ‘support’ iOS, there would not be a way to run iOS within chrome or android. right? so how can a graphic put an open standard, a proprietary plug-in, and an operating system on the same line of an info-graphic?

    fail.

  • Brought to you by Adobe.

  • FLASHsucks May 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    HTML 5 > Flash. End of story.

  • A lot of my work is done in Flash. I’m happy about the fact that Flash exists and the opportunities it brings.

    That said, this infographic makes me so angry! If the data was well researched I would rant about the bad design that is barely legible. But there is so much more that’s wrong about this graphic. I don’t even know why someone would compare HTML5 to Flash. It’s like comparing Rolling Stones’ Exile on Main St. to the Beatles’ Discography. Yes, you can do it but it is not very useful for anyone. And that’s where the tricky part starts. People will think this “data visualization” is useful, and share the data, share the numbers and mix up facts. The only useful part of this post are the comments of people who either have – or are willing to share a more realistic view. True numbers don’t make stats honest. That is their biggest problem and this Flash vs. HTML 5 piece is a great example.

  • What about a statistic for browsers that support Javascript (est 1995) and CSS2 (est 1998). A lot of sites/apps are accredited as using ‘HTML5′ when they are really just using an elegant combination of CSS and Javascript.

  • It is too soon to find a winner. Flash is an adult, HTML5 is an infant. Flash is ubiquity with video, HTML5 is developing and will take time to become ubiquitous with applications. HTML5 dont require plugin, and even google chrome uses Flash with a built-in plugin on top of developing its own WebM that has HTML5. HTML5 has a great promise, but then Flash has its own development to boast, and Flash keeps up with technology. Web development has gone a long way. CSS and Javascript have found heavy use, (cant do without it), but that is a different topic, and yet not exclusive with Flash or HTML5 in applications.

  • Sebastian June 2, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    In first iPad and iPhone don´t support Flash because rich Stevie doesn´t want to ruin his AppStore.

    I really don´t understand this HTML5 hype. Is there something more than the canvas, SVG and pluginless embedding of videos, despite all the little things? I haven´t done anything with HTML5 yet, but it seems most of the “amazing” things are done with: JavaScript. That´s not new. But it´s good, because it lets us improve usability. A lot.

    All these “HTML5 is the Flash Killer” discussions are absolutely ridiculous. Flash is not obsolete, it´s improving all the time. Just look at Molehill, do that with HTML5 and JavaScript… Considering only what´s possible, Flash will always be far ahead. But of course it doesn´t mean you should do everything in Flash. These are different languages for different purposes.

  • How much penetration (in percentile) has Flash or HTML5 achieved is irrelevant at this time for the general users. Users should be concerned about virus, smooth frame movements, and crashes. ( I have a feeling they will comment.)
    Browsers and developers are the ones that will have to take a hard look at developments and what to adopt.

  • Lol: apple praises html 5 and yet it’s web browser does not support 50percent of html 5 functionality 200 of 400 points = fail were i come from. http://html5test.com/. HTML 5 well apple it simply does not work with your device browser

  • I think it’s pretty ridiculous that this is such a debate. What it boils down to is that Flash designers/dev are scared something is going to happen to the line of work that they chose to pursue(which I am one of those who chose that path). And people who are HTML5 devs think that this is going to take over the flash world. But neither are true. It is all in what you are comfortable in and enjoy doing. There will always be Maya and there will always be C4D. They virtually do the same thing but it’s just a diff way of doing it. As far as i’m concerned, there is no war….

    • The difference is that the output of Maya and the output of Cinema4D is usually the same, and doesn’t require the user to do anything different. In most cases, the end user isn’t even dealing with the output directly from either of those programs. Maya vs C4D is a question of workflow, not audience.

      With Flash vs HTML5, there is a burden on the user to either have an up-to-date Flash plugin (largely trivial but not entirely insignificant), or an up-to-date browser. Plus there’s the whole issue of one of those being proprietary and in the hands of a single entity. A more accurate comparison would be the file formats of those programs, some of which are proprietary, and some of which are open standards.

  • “In terms of interactive content overall, it’s safe to say that Flash maintains a 2x performance lead over HTML5 on average.”
    http://www.craftymind.com/guimark3/

  • Once HTML5 sites, rendered on a mobile platform, start competing with mobile apps, then HTML5 won’t be of any benefit over Flash. Strangely enough HTML5 has some life and optimism at the moment because it’s not yet as good as Flash. But it’s a false optimism. Flash websites are banned on mobile platforms not because they don’t work so well ( which is just Apple propaganda) but because Flash websites could compete with apps and the distribution system Apple has established. Flash sites could circumnavigate Apples anti-competitive policies (as they should). Android is no better but perhaps more blatant in their anti-competitive policies. At least they don’t resort to outright lies.

    How will mobile platform OSs handle HTML5 sites that start competing with their app distribution setups?

    Another shakeup of some sort no doubt. In the interim the result is that websites – irregardless of the creative possibilities of HTML5, must become increasingly uninteresting (uncompetitive) so as not to offend Apple and Android etc.

    The web will become a creative dead end and creative apps will be at the mercy of mobile platform companies.

    Who is doing anything about this?

  • Wilhelm Reuch June 21, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    Flash is a vendor specific technology. Flash is Adobes platform which they piggyback on other platforma (like some form of parasite) and replace the native APIs. Flash should be compared to native apps and in that comparision native compilation win 100% of the time.

    The other alternative is to build something for the open runtime stack called HTML5. Neither native apps nor Flash stuff will run on HTML5. Yes, you can start native apps or Flash from HTML5, but they dont run on the HTML5 runtime.

    Flash is not. compatible with HTML5. Maybe with some browser products, but so is native apps.

  • There are some 200 million iOS devices, not 20 million. Lots of Android phones can’t run Flash either. Apple is committed to HTML5 so it will keep improving on iOS devices. as well as WinPhone7 and Android. Personally I’d go with HTML5. To the guy who doesn’t get what’s wrong with Flash and puts it down to Steve Jobs’ meglomania, I’m happy to lend him my laptop to sit on his short and curly’s while Flash drives the computer to heat up to solar dimensions.

    • So Steve Jobs subequent backtrack decision to allow Flash for iOS apps is a bad decision? If flash doesn’t perform so well on iOS, or a Mac (or a Mac browser) is that flash, the OS, the hardware, or a little of each? In reality I’d say a little of each. To isolate flash as the problem is just stupid. Either that or Jobs audience really is stupid. It’s not Jobs megalomania that is the problem. He’s protecting a particular market – which is fine – but to savage flash to that end was, if not misdirection (or an outright lie) just plain stupid.

      • Carl, Flash in the browser has clearly been a problem for all handheld devices. Until Flash 10.3, performance was very bad. I regularly listen to the Security Now! podcast; Flash continues to have numerous zero-day security problems. That’s not to say that there are no security bugs in the rest of iOS (there’s currently a JailbreakMe hack that comes in through Apple’s PDF viewer), there have been nowhere near the problems of Flash. A secure environment — especially in the browser — is paramount for handheld devices. Apple has leaned to the side of security by banning Flash in the browser. If someone insists on Flash, they have oodles of Android, Blackberry, and WebOS alternatives. I think that Apple made the right decision — particularly given the state of Flash back in 2007.

        That said, I think Apple made a mistake making any sort of cross-compilation restrictions on iOS apps. I am glad those restrictions have been removed. OS partitioning and file system firewalls should be plenty to protect the computer from a rogue app. The marketplace can decide which iOS apps are winners; Flash apps are welcome to enter the game.

        I wish that Java were available in a runtime format on iOS platforms. There are way too many excellent educational opportunities for the platform. Perhaps a third party will address this shortcoming.

      • Hi Phil,

        I agree with you. But trashing Flash in front of end users was a particularly vicious response to such a problem. I can think of any number of alternative routes that could have been more diplomatically appropriate. Flash itself wasn’t the problem – as can be seen from Jobs backtrack decision to allow Flash apps. The problem was, as you say – in the browser. The real solution to such problems was to fix those problems. But that’s not how companys work. They are like political partys – if there is an opportunity to stick the knife in they do. If they overstep their mark – they backtrack and pat each other on the back and exhibit their fake smiles that all is okay.

        The problem for Jobs is that he originally positioned himself as the decent cool guy fighting the megolomaniacs (such as Gates) but instead has become one himself. Adobe has never been megolomanical in it’s positioning. The trashing they got from Jobs was a political mistake on Jobs part. He no doubt realises that now.

        Carl

      • On the other hand Adobe probably needed a bit of a wake up call. Just not sure Jobs idea of punishment fitted the crime.

      • I think you’re creating a personification that just isn’t so.

        Apple made a business decision to exclude Flash from the iPhone browser. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, that was the correct decision. Flash has continued to be a vector for a huge number of malware attacks. Its performance was problematic; the latest version continues to have performance problems. Including Flash with the original iPhone would have bought all sorts of pain to Apple and very little downside.

        What critical Flash websites are out there? For complex services (Banks, Stock Trading, etc.), there exist iOS apps. Those are superior — and will always be superior — than using a browser.

      • Personally I think the Apple brand is like a Tim Burton movie – all surface and no substance. But then a lot of people like that so I’m not going to argue with that. Personally I find Apples quite nice on the outside but somewhat ugly onthe inside. But I’m happy to ignore that if I can use other tools such as Java, C#, or AS3. And I can. I can use Flash for apps on iOS and that is great that Jobs (eventually) allowed that. I have no real interest in flash in the browser on the mobile phone. And as you say other mobile devices do it. If iOS devices have difficulty then yes – it’s not a good idea to have flash in the browser.

        But what makes me personally quite outspoken about Jobs, at this particular juncture in time, was the hatchet job he did on Flash fullstop. It wasn’t about flash in the browser – it was about flash fullstop. He eventually realised his mistake.

        But in making the mistake in the first place he has spawned various know-it-alls in management to emulate Jobs error and flame flash fullstop – not caring to make the distinction between flash in the browser and flash for apps.

        Flash devs, fully capable of producing apps in Flash now have a harder sell on their hands.

        And only because Jobs had the stupidity to make flippant generalisations about Flash.

        Mud sticks.

        Now I’m not much better myself. I’m making flippant generalisations as well. But I’m nobody so I can get away with it.

  • :o I got an idea, why don’t everything just support BOTH!

  • There’s a famous 1950s book (still in print) “How to Lie with Statistics”. I believe this is an example of how to mislead with infographics.

    The % of browsers supported on iOS is a complete non-sequitur. Most users will always use the provided browser exclusively. Over 200M iOS devices have been shipped; iOS will never ever support flash in Safari or allow it in any of the third-party browsers.

    Flash is no longer ubiquitous on laptop and desktop computers. Apple will no longer ship Flash with its machines. Many users have click-to-flash filters installed; they will only run flash apps on whitelisted servers. AFAICT, neither of these facts are reflected in the 99% statistic.

    Adobe doesn’t believe that Flash is the solution: they are now providing cross-compiling tool to generate HTML5 from Flash code. Interestingly, Adobe is also providing a cross-compiling kit to generate iOS applications from Flash. The latter would work poorly for serving up visualizations, but it does indicate that Adobe knows the battle has been lost for Flash on iOS browsers.

    • Flash is not a technology – it is a brand.

      When cross-compiling tools become available – for transcoding flash to iOS – it would be branded under Flash – unless of course the brand has been so trashed by the stupidity of Steve Jobs and his followers that Adobe has to drop the brand altogether.

      Jobs is just doing what Gates did to the ECMAScript standard on which Flash AS3 was based – trashing it for his own stupid end.

      Standards are just the lowest common denominator under which competing companies can maintain their fake smiles with each other.

      • “When cross-compiling tools become available – for transcoding flash to iOS – it would be branded under Flash”

        Flash Builder 4.5 and Flex 4.5 were released by Adobe on 6/20/2011.

        “Jobs is just doing what Gates did to the ECMAScript standard on which Flash AS3 was based – trashing it for his own stupid end.”

        Not exactly. Flash performed far worse in 2007 — when the iPhone and iPad touch were first released. The behavior of Safari was critical to the success of the iPhone; Apple was unwilling to depend on some third party vendor for the behavior of their software. Critical factors were both the resource consumption/speed of flash and potential security problems. Flash in 2007 had both huge performance and security problems; many of those problems still exist today.

      • By “transcoding to iOS” I meant into Apple’s strange excuse for a computer language – which is what I thought you meant. My apologies.

        But on the Jobs/Gates/Megolomania front I have to disagree. See my previous comments to your earlier posts above.

      • With respect to Java – I’m with 100%. I started using it when it first came out. It was great. As I did with Flash. Flash managed to stick because it didn’t require any knowledge of programming. It barely had any commands. Flash eventually evolved a proper programming language (AS3). But before then Java had retreated to the server side and the desktop. It was originally positioned as a mobile device language – but having grown fat on the desktop and server side they had to spawn a light version by the time mobile devices actually emerged. Java is still a lot better than AS3. My favourite language is C#. I don’t know what ObjectiveC is. It’s the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen.

      • An HTML5 ? It’s not even a language. And javascript? It’s stuck in an excuse for standards – read politics.

      • “But on the Jobs/Gates/Megolomania front I have to disagree. See my previous comments to your earlier posts above.”

        Keeping Flash out of iOS Safari was the right decision.

        Look at the state of Flash in 2007. Look at the number of zero day Flash bugs that have been found since then. Some would argue that the current version of Flash has performance issues; everyone would agree that Flash in 2007 had huge performance problems.

        Why should Jobs have wedded the performance of the iPhone browser — a critical component — to a third-party vendor who had a decade-long track record of delivering buggy software?

        Look back with 20-20 hindsight. Apple has never ever had a major security problem with Safari or their iPhones. AFAIK, there have been zero day malware problems with Safari. Customers trust their phones.

        Apple has managed to create a truly impressive iOS App Store. Developers have created over 400,000 apps. Over 15 Billion apps have been downloaded, and over $2.5 Billon has been paid out to developers for those apps. And that doesn’t include private apps that companies have made for their employees.

        How do those numbers compare to Flash apps for Android? I’ve never seen numbers quoted, but I’m certain the Flash App sales are far less than 1% of App Store sales.

        Jobs’s decisions were right on. They were the right decision for Apple, and they were the right decision for Apple’s customers.

      • Job’s decision to trash flash was just stupid. Not supporting Flash in the safari browser is one thing – and I’m convinced by your argument there. But trashing Flash in a public forum is another. Especially when it later turned out there wasn’t any problem using Flash to author apps at all. Jobs is an idiot. Or he was an idiot. At least he was decent enough to backtrack and allow Flash to author apps. But why trash Flash in the first place? An enormous amount of damage was done there. Enormous.

      • Let me be more specific because I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. I’m not bagging Jobs because he didn’t allow Flash in the Safari browser. Well – I did bag him out for that but you’ve convinced me otherwise. Rather – I’m still bagging him out because he trashed Flash fullstop. There are no performance issues with Flash. Or to put it another way – if there are performance issues then shouldn’t Flash be banned as a platform for building apps? You can’t have it both ways.

        The reality is that Jobs made a fool of himself.

        Flash isn’t the be all or end all. I personally use as many platforms as I can. Flash is just one of them. And quite a nice one. Especially the language AS3 – which is very beautiful. The flash runtime obviously needs more work. And I’m sure Adobe will get their arse into gear – especuilally after the bot they got from Jobs.

        But the whole apple paradigm of “one ring to rule them all” is just silly.

        The web was founded on heterogenous networks – minimalist standards on which you can build anything. That’s the internet. If Safari can’t handle the internet that’s Safari’s problem. And if Flash can’t handle Safari that’s Flash problem. So be it.

        But to single out Flash for trashing in the app domain is completely idiotic.

        That’s what I’m talking about.

        Politics .

        Speaking of which – I don’t blame NY for being a vector for terrorsim. I blame terrorism.

      • POST SCRIPT

        This morning I discovered someone had hacked my bank account over the weekend – true story. And emptied it of all my savings. Well they hacked my card rather than account as such.

        The irony is that they purchased something from the Apple Store in Australia with my card – to the sum of everything that was in my account.

        I’ve spoken to the bank and they’ve closed my card. But now I’ll be in dispute resolution talks with Apple. Both of us are victims here.

        Who is to blame? Apple, me, the bank or the idiot who thought it would be fun to to do what they did? Answer: the idiot.

        So

      • “Let me be more specific because I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. I’m not bagging Jobs because he didn’t allow Flash in the Safari browser. Well – I did bag him out for that but you’ve convinced me otherwise. Rather – I’m still bagging him out because he trashed Flash fullstop. There are no performance issues with Flash. Or to put it another way – if there are performance issues then shouldn’t Flash be banned as a platform for building apps? You can’t have it both ways.”

        There are still plenty of folks trying to claim that Flash is necessary for “the full web experience”, and that you can’t get “the best of the web” without Flash. RIMM attempted to make that argument with their Playbook ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STw4zti94iM . The funny part is: they never ever say what webpages are doing some sort of indispensable thing in Flash; they never tell us what we’re missing on those 200M+ iOS devices. The truth is that they’re not missing anything.

        I did like to hear the Queen song again; I’m sure they paid big bucks for that. But is that really the best possible thing you can say about your new device? Really?

        “The reality is that Jobs made a fool of himself.”

        Nonsense. They made a bad business decision, and they reversed it within 2-3 months. You ignore any sort of technical factors that may have gone into their original decision.

        “Flash isn’t the be all or end all. I personally use as many platforms as I can. Flash is just one of them. And quite a nice one. Especially the language AS3 – which is very beautiful. The flash runtime obviously needs more work. And I’m sure Adobe will get their arse into gear – especuilally after the bot they got from Jobs.”

        Flash will now never be ubiquitous on browsers. That ship has sailed. If there is some compelling Flash apps packaged in the app store, then we will see. But I’m not holding my breath: I predict only a small percentage of popular apps in the App Store will ever be Flash-based.

        “But the whole apple paradigm of ‘one ring to rule them all’ is just silly.”

        The whole assertion of “one ring to rule them all” is completely silly. iOS. Android. QNX. WebOS. Exercise your free choice; vote with your wallet.

        “The web was founded on heterogenous networks – minimalist standards on which you can build anything. That’s the internet. If Safari can’t handle the internet that’s Safari’s problem. And if Flash can’t handle Safari that’s Flash problem. So be it.”

        Bingo. Users *have* voted with their wallets, and they are tremendously happy with their Apple portable devices. They like the coice of doing work through either apps or the browser. They are quite happy about the security and reliability their devices have brought.

        “But to single out Flash for trashing in the app domain is completely idiotic. That’s what I’m talking about.”

        IIRC, Apple banned *all* cross-compilers; they did not single out Flash.

      • “The irony is that they purchased something from the Apple Store in Australia with my card – to the sum of everything that was in my account.”

        My sympathy for your loss and the work it will take to get things straight.

        What you are talking about is a coincidence. It is not irony. Many confuse those two things. Check out http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ironically.html

        “I’ve spoken to the bank and they’ve closed my card. But now I’ll be in dispute resolution talks with Apple. Both of us are victims here.
        Who is to blame? Apple, me, the bank or the idiot who thought it would be fun to to do what they did? Answer: the idiot.”

        The problem is the system. WIth PayPal, you can get a Security Key (google on “paypal security key”) to see how this works. Paypal has handed off the verification of transactions to this hardware dongle. Steve Gibson of the podcast “Security Now!” is very happy with his Paypal football.

        One could ask: why have the major credit card companies ever offered this service? If fraud is lowered with hardware validation like this — and it would be lowered — why don’t the CC companies embrace this tech? You can see a discussion about this at http://gizmodo.com/5812685/its-time-to-abandon-passwords . I also recommend the current episode of Security now episode #307: The Future of Identity. You can find audio and transcripts of the podcast at http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm . You can find more formats for the podcast (including video) at http://twit.tv/sn .

        This discussion is OT for the Flash/Apple discussion we’re having here.

      • “So if Apple has a ‘closed’ policy it’s okay. But anyone else – oh that’s a problem. What is it about Steve Jobs and Apple that makes apple fanboys so blind to their own hypocrisy”

        iOS is a closed platform. MacOS is a closed platform. Jobs notes that in his “Thoughts on Flash” essay.

        Windows — in all of its forms — is closed. WebOS is closed, as is QNX. Interestingly, Google Android is also closed: “selected vendors” get the OS first, and you only get access to include the primo Google apps if you comply by a bunch of rules. The “open” release is delayed for many months. *All* of the OSs for handhelds are essentially closed.

        Flash is also proprietary. One company controls how Flash behaves; there are no viable open-source or even third-party ports of the Flash environment.

        Carl: Jobs’s statement was in response to a claim from Adobe that Flash was somehow open. That statement was false, and that is what Jobs noted.

        I have no idea what claim from Apple you think is hypocritical. And I still have no idea why your shorts are in a ruffle about Jobs’s statement. His claims in that statement were correct. If you think any of the claims in Jobs’s statement were incorrect, you must specifically state why.

        “And besides which it is only the Flash runtime that is closed (and the various authoring platforms by Adobe). Everything else is open source. As a developer you can author flash without using anything closed source.”

        From Apple’s point of view, the closed part is the critical part.

        Apple was unwilling to tie the behavior of their 2007 iPhone Safari browser to a closed solution from a third party. In 20/20 hindsight, that was the correct decision. Flash in 2007 was definitely not ready for prime time on a handheld.

        I took the time to comment in detail on Jobs’s 2010 essay. Please tell me specifically what is upsetting you about that document. Thanks!

  • “Job’s decision to trash flash was just stupid. Not supporting Flash in the safari browser is one thing – and I’m convinced by your argument there.”

    Jobs was making the same arguments I did. He was not “trashing flash”; he was stating the clear and obvious problems with Flash in 2007 — many of which still exist.

    Abobe dearly wanted for Flash to be ubiquitous in web browsers. But that ship has sailed: Flash will never be available on iOS computers. That is one of the problem with the visualization in this discussion: it completely ignores those 200M+ computers.

    “But trashing Flash in a public forum is another.”

    What exactly did Jobs say that got your shorts in a ruffle?

    “Especially when it later turned out there wasn’t any problem using Flash to author apps at all. Jobs is an idiot. Or he was an idiot.”

    We have no idea what technical factors went into that decision. Security on their handheld devices is paramount; maybe Apple wasn’t certain that their firewalls would hold.

    IIRC, Apple reversed its decision within 2-3 months. I applaud them for reversing a bad decision.

    “But why trash Flash in the first place? An enormous amount of damage was done there. Enormous.”

    What were the exact words said that got you so unhappy? Please provide a reference.

      • Job’s points are accurate:

        1. Flash is not an open standard. It is controlled by one company. There is not a viable third-party alternative available from anyone.

        This means that Apple would have had to stake the performance of Safari on the iPhone to Adobe. Strategically, that would have been a terrible decision for apple.

        2. You can’t get “the full web” without Flash.

        All of the major video sources have long ago converted to serving up their video via an open standard. If some site is lagging in opening up their videos, the iOS app Skyfire will do streaming conversion on the fly.

        You now can get Flash games on iOS — as apps. And there are over 50,000 iOS games already available.

        3. Adobe has an abysmal track record for security and performance.

        This is true. I can’t count the number of times that security expert Steve Gibson has publicly decried the lack of security of Adobe products. The number of zero-day Flash bugs keep piling up.

        Performace has slowly improved, but it’s still a problem. Performance was *certainly* a problem in 2007 when the iPhone was released.

        I saw a review of the HP TouchPad where the reviewer was getting 2-4 frames per second on a popular Flash site (I believe it was mlb.com). That performance is unacceptable. One must wonder why HP didn’t catch these obvious performance problems before their devices hit the market. I bet they did know, and Adobe had no solution to the performance without huge slips in delivery date.
        Note: this is *exactly* the kind of dependency that Apple successfully avoided with their iOS devices by keeping flash out.

        4. Battery Life

        Slowly becoming less of a problem, but still a problem.

        5. User Interface

        Amen, Steve! One of the continual frustrations of the Flash UI on my Mac is that it does not work the same way as my real HTML windows. Some of the keyboard shortcuts just don’t work when focused on a Flash window. The built-in text search mechanisms do not work. Scrolling works different ways (I guess this has been fixed in the latest Flash, but many apps have not — and probably will not — be re-built). In short, I have to think much harder when in Flash windows. The magic vanishes.

        We will see what Flash apps look like when they start being available in the App Store. I predict that Steve is right on.

        6. Adobe has been late to the game in going with the native interface.

        Did you read this section: it took Adobe 10 years (!) to adopt Cocoa on the Mac. Apple is after a consistent user experience.

        I am curious to see Flash apps in the App Store. If there are free ones, I may download and try them. And I think Steve is dead on: those Flash apps will be clunkers and will never ever show up in the popular or best-selling list on the iOS store.

        Apple’s only mistake was not trusting the market to sort all that out. Allowing cross-compilers for apps is the right approach. If the apps are turkeys, only a handful will ever purchase them. If they don’t like them, they can delete ‘em. Apple reversed its decision in 2-3 months, IIRC.

        Carl: I have no problem with what Steve said in that letter. His criticisms of Adobe are indeed valid. We can now look back and see the huge pain Apple would have endured to have Flash on this platform. As the owners of those 200M+ devices note: Flash is not needed. Those iOS users are geting “the full web experience” just fine.

        Flash is starting to fade. Even Adobe recognizes this; they are now shipping tools to convert from Flash to HTML5.

      • ” Flash is not an open standard. It is controlled by one company. There is not a viable third-party alternative available from anyone.”

        So you prefer to buy apps from the AppStore totaly controled by one compagny, Apple. Apps that were not so long ago made only with the ObjectiveC language, apple again, where is the “open” in this sytem ?

        Apple’s politics are catastrophic for the web and the web’s freedom. It make’s me laugh when you criticize Flash, saying it’s not an open standard. You can do any content with flash. This is not true with appstore : Apple refuse any app who is not in the Job’s vision of the world.

        They argue this is about quality… This is about content control and this is NOT sane.

        And about HTML5, from my own observations : HTML5 perfs are really poor on IPAD and IPHONE, and can take more ressources than flash (Did you tryed to do anything with canvas on IPAD ?).

        If Flash were gone tomorow, we would lose in a lot of domains in the web (webcam chat, sockets, sounds manipulations…). This would be a technical regress.

      • “So you prefer to buy apps from the AppStore totally controlled by one company, Apple.”

        Yes. I prefer a single app store that is curated by one company. I prefer certain minimal standards for being listed in the App Store, and the ability for Apple to remotely “recall” a rogue application.

        If you don’t prefer that, you’re free to go with a product that doesn’t have a single curated app store.

        One note: Apple can’t absolutely dictate anything. If the terms of the App Store were too onerous, then more people would start jailbreaking their phones and getting their apps from wherever.

        “Apps that were not so long ago made only with the ObjectiveC language, apple again, where is the ‘open’ in this system ?”

        Apple has removed that restriction. Cross-code in whatever you like.

        Did you see the earlier discussion: perhaps Apple had some technical reasons for that restriction, and they have determined that those restrictions are now unnecessary. Did that ever occur to you?

        “Apple’s politics are catastrophic for the web and the web’s freedom.”

        This has nothing to do with baseball, hot dogs, or apple pie. It has nothing to do with freedom. It had to do with Apple’s unwillingness to tie the success of its iPhone browser to the disaster that Flash was in 2007.

        Have you kept track of the number of zero day Adobe Flash bugs in the last 4 years?

        “It make’s me laugh when you criticize Flash, saying it’s not an open standard. You can do any content with flash. This is not true with appstore : Apple refuse any app who is not in the Job’s vision of the world.”

        …which ensures a certain minimal standard of quality of apps in the App Store. Clearly, Apple is doing something right: over 425K apps, over 15B downloads (!), over $2.5B (!) paid to developers, 100K native iPad apps, and over 200M iOS devices.

        None of the Android app stores are getting anywhere near the activity of the app store.

        “They argue this is about quality… This is about content control and this is NOT sane.”

        It’s called curation. If you don’t like it, don’t buy Apple devices. Select a device that is more promiscuous about what App Stores it will download apps from, and is more promiscuous about the apps that are allowed. If your handheld catches a virus, please don’t complain to me. ;-(

        “If Flash were gone tomorow, we would lose in a lot of domains in the web (webcam chat, sockets, sounds manipulations…). This would be a technical regress.”

        iOS devices never had — and never will have — Flash. Yet those users get along just fine.

        Are you absolutely certain that none of those things are available on the iOS platform?

      • So if Apple has a “closed” policy it’s okay. But anyone else – oh that’s a problem. What is it about Steve Jobs and Apple that makes apple fanboys so blind to their own hypocrisy

        And besides which it is only the Flash runtime that is closed (and the various authoring platforms by Adobe). Everything else is open source. As a developer you can author flash without using anything closed source.

      • “So if Apple has a ‘closed’ policy it’s okay. But anyone else – oh that’s a problem. What is it about Steve Jobs and Apple that makes apple fanboys so blind to their own hypocrisy”

        You completely missed the “open” point in Jobs’s posting.

        All of the OSs for handheld devices are proprietary: iOS, QNX, WebOS, MS’s handheld flavor of Windows. Even Android is proprietary: only those that agree to a certain set of functionality and compliance get to include Google’s marquis applications. Everybody else gets the “open” Android — months or years later.

        Jobs doesn’t have an issue that Adobe Flash is proprietary. Jobs’s objection was that Adobe *claims* that Flash is somehow an “open” standard. It is not.

        “And besides which it is only the Flash runtime that is closed (and the various authoring platforms by Adobe).”

        That’s enough. It’s a closed platform.

        Jobs is right on challenging Adobe’s claim that Flash is somehow “open”. It is not hypocrisy.

  • Success is a vector for attack. It was the success of Flash that made it a vector for attack. It was the sucess of PCs that made it a vector for attack. And it is the success of iOS that makes it a vector for attack. A gated community is one approach. But there are much better approaches to defense then building a brickwall and flaming those on the outside.

    • “Success is a vector for attack. It was the success of Flash that made it a vector for attack.”

      Prominence of a platform is one factor in vulnerability. Another factor is the boneheaded design decisions made by a vendor. Adobe allows executable code — javascript — in PDF documents. This “feature” has been a primary vector for viruses for several years. I have listened to Steve Gibson (Security Now!) rail against the terrible security designs of Adobe products for years.

      On the other hand, a well-designed OS can protect against many problems. The file system firewalls between applications remove many threats categorically from iOS.

      “And it is the success of iOS that makes it a vector for attack.”

      Really? What evidence do you have of any sort of widespread vulnerability on iOS?

      How many devices do we need before iOS is “vulnerable” this way? Isn’t 200M devices enough?

      “A gated community is one approach. But there are much better approaches to defense then building a brickwall and flaming those on the outside.”

      Please explain what approaches you think are superior. Your explanation of those superior approaches should explain the huge success of “inferior” iOS.

      I covered Jobs’s memo in detail. His claims are correct. I still have no idea why you are upset about that memo.

      • Oh Jobs is correct is he. And how does a security vulnerability in PDF affect Flash? Oh – because they’re made by the same company. Well we better throw out all our Adobe products and burn them. We’ll be safer then.

        Good grief.

      • “And it is the success of iOS that makes it a vector for attack.”

        Really? What evidence do you have of any sort of widespread vulnerability on iOS?

        I never said that. I said it is a vector for attack. Whether anyone succeeds is another story. And whether Apple tells us is another. The point is that success breeds the vector.

        And in any case we were (or I was) talking about Flash for app development. The distinction is important – at least to us developers who know what we’re talking about. But Jobs isn’t talking to developers. He’s talking to his fanboys, and the public at large, to the marketplace, most of whom wouldn’t have a clue. They see the word “Flash” and if Jobs has a problem with “Flash” then all his little fanboys must respond in kind. And the public at large – not knowing what to think – just go with the flow and say “yeah flash sux” irregardless of the specific context.

        It’s not whether Jobs is correct or not (even though some of it is incorrect) but the fact that he singles out one brand for attack. Why doesn’t ha have “some thoughts” on Unity along the same lines? Or any other third party development environemtn. I’m sure he could dig up dirt on thsoe as well.

        Oh – it’s because he’s Steve Jobs. What a jerk.

      • “Oh Jobs is correct is he.”

        I believe he is correct in his memo. I made a long posting commenting on why I think he’s correct on each of his points. If you disagree with Jobs’s points, the way to do that is to quote what Jobs said and explain why you disagree.

        That would be the rational way to have a discussion about this, right?

        “And how does a security vulnerability in PDF affect Flash?”

        I never said that it did. My point was that Adobe has made some boneheaded design decisions in their products — design decisions that make their products far more vulnerable to malware attacks. PDF is used to print files; allowing executable code in PDF was simply a boneheaded decision. It has given the malware writers another way to attack PCs.

        “Oh – because they’re made by the same company.”

        It demonstrates a particular corporate cluelessness by Adobe to make hardened software. Having capabilities in the code that serve nobody but the malware distributors is just plain stupid.

        It challenges your conjecture that simply the prominence of a platform is what makes it vulnerable. That hasn’t happened to the 200M+ iOS devices.

        “Well we better throw out all our Adobe products and burn them. We’ll be safer then.”

        This is actually a good point. On the Mac, we can completely throw out Adobe reader and use Apple Preview instead. This is a far faster and more functional solution, and all of the goofy security leaks by allowing executable code in PDF files are eliminated.

        I have made a point of telling users about click-to-flash browser plugins. Many non-technical users don’t realize that they can muzzle flash — and only run the Flash apps that *they* want to run.

        Did you notice that Adobe never provided the click-to-Flash capability? Third-party vendors had to create plugins to muzzle Flash. This points to a general failing of Adobe: their customer is developers and not on the end-user experience. Flash apps should NOT run because some website developer thinks I want them to run on my PC; they should only run because I want them to run!

        Non-technical users are always grateful when I help them install click-to-flash on their machines. Besides muzzling Flash advertising, these provide a good first line of defense against malware Flash apps. If you don’t run the Flash, it can do no harm to your machine.

      • ” ‘And it is the success of iOS that makes it a vector for attack.’ ”
        “Really? What evidence do you have of any sort of widespread vulnerability on iOS?”

        In your posting on July 11, 2011 at 3:38 pm, you said,
        “Success is a vector for attack.”

        I was pointing out the absurdity of your conjecture. If success were a vector for attack, then we would be having widespread attacks on the 200M+ iOS devices.

        “I never said that. I said it is a vector for attack. Whether anyone succeeds is another story.”

        Then how do you justify the widespread successful attacks on Adobe software. How many zero day Flash bugs have we endured over the past year?

        “And whether Apple tells us is another.”

        Nonsense. If there are widespread problems, the users would complain. Loudly.

        “And in any case we were (or I was) talking about Flash for app development. The distinction is important – at least to us developers who know what we’re talking about. But Jobs isn’t talking to developers. He’s talking to his fanboys, and the public at large, to the marketplace, most of whom wouldn’t have a clue.”

        Then you should have no problem explaining the flaws in Jobs’s essay — the one that got you so upset. So far, you have failed to list a single flaw in Jobs’s reasoning.

        “They see the word “Flash” and if Jobs has a problem with “Flash” then all his little fanboys must respond in kind.”

        See above. I support Jobs’s essay because it makes sense.

        You have NEVER EVER SAID what you think is wrong in that memo. You just keep repeating your stereotypes, generalizations, and conjectures.

        “And the public at large – not knowing what to think – just go with the flow and say “yeah flash sux” irregardless of the specific context.”

        Nonsense. I have made a compelling case why Flash in the browser would have been a terrible choice for the 2007 iPhone. I covered Jobs’s memo point by point; you haven’t responded to that reasoned argument.

        “It’s not whether Jobs is correct or not (even though some of it is incorrect) but the fact that he singles out one brand for attack. Why doesn’t ha have “some thoughts” on Unity along the same lines?”

        Adobe tried to make the claim that Flash was essential for “the full web experience”. They pressed really hard on that point, and Jobs pushed back.

        Adobe has now lost that argument, and they know it. They are now producing tools to generate HTML5 from Flash code — so their developers code can run on all browsers.

        “Oh – it’s because he’s Steve Jobs. What a jerk.”

        You continue to issue epithets like this with nothing to back them up. Name-calling will get you nowhere, Carl. Please provide reasoning.

      • Hi Phil – I can’t address all your statements in one go – there are too many – but I can tackle them one by one (as I see fit). For this comment I’ll address this one:

        “I have made a compelling case why Flash in the browser would have been a terrible choice for the 2007 iPhone. I covered Jobs’s memo point by point; you haven’t responded to that reasoned argument.”

        Yes you have – but I also said, quite reasonably – that you’ve convinced me on that. So I’m not sure why you find it necessary to reiterate it – especially when I have been talking about Flash as an application development platform – that performs fine, has the security provided by Apple curatorship and all is now right in the world with that.

        Or should be, but if we follow your logic – guilt by association – then we should regard Flash for apps as suspect as well. Which is exactly what Jobs has managed to do and you – a psuedo-rationalist – just suck it all up and do the same: guilt by association.

        I don’t like name calling but at least you know that’s all it is – just hot air.

        The problem with guys like you is that you don’t know how to blow hot air. Rather you bottle it all up and spit out in psuedo-logical terms.

        Excuse me while I go and burn all my copies of Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects and so on. I’m sure they must be the problem. your arguments are so persuasive. I’ll go and buy Apple software instead.

      • Comment 2:

        “Adobe tried to make the claim that Flash was essential for “the full web experience”. They pressed really hard on that point, and Jobs pushed back.”

        1. This isn’t a rhetorical question as I’m sure you are correct: but where I can read the claim by Adobe?
        2. So Jobs pushed back? By trashing Flash. Gosh – he must have been upset with Adobe’s claims.

      • Comment 3:

        “Adobe has now lost that argument, and they know it. They are now producing tools to generate HTML5 from Flash code — so their developers code can run on all browsers.”

        Creating HTML5 from flash code isn’t a loss for Flash. That’s a win for Flash. That’s a really cool thing for Adobe to be doing. Flash isn’t just the run time player that you insatll in your browser. Indeed that’s the least interesting thing about Flash. Flash is an ecosystem – a development environment – and design environment – a way of authoring work in a beautiful language and otherwise easily authoring vector graphics and handmade animations. There are other ways of course. I use heaps of tools – Flash is just one – but it has a special place in my heart.

        Flash is a tool for producers. The flash runtime is just the consumer end of that pipeline. If one can target HTML5, or iOS apps, or desktop apps, using Flash then that will be a success for Flash. Not a failure.

      • Comment 4:

        “I was pointing out the absurdity of your conjecture. If success were a vector for attack, then we would be having widespread attacks on the 200M+ iOS devices. ”

        How do we know we’re not?

        The point I made, and will reiterate here is that a successful attack is a different story altogether. If Apple are enjoying good security then good on em. They’re keepin the buggers at bay.

        Or perhaps you are right. Perhaps nobody is attacking them. Perhaps they’re not successful.

        It’s just a theory of mine anyway – that success breeds attacks.

        If the theory is correct I certainly wouldn’t hold that against Apple. I want them to be both successful and secure.

      • “ ‘I have made a compelling case why Flash in the browser would have been a terrible choice for the 2007 iPhone. I covered Jobs’s memo point by point; you haven’t responded to that reasoned argument.’ ”

        “Yes you have – but I also said, quite reasonably – that you’ve convinced me on that. So I’m not sure why you find it necessary to reiterate it”

        You have expressed your upset with what Jobs said in that memo. I broke down what Jobs said; he seems to be right on with all of his comments in that memo. I have no idea why you are upset.

        “Or should be, but if we follow your logic – guilt by association – then we should regard Flash for apps as suspect as well.”

        Incorrect. Flash in Safari could corrupt the browser. But Flash in an application is isolated by the file system firewalls; it cannot attack any other application. That’s a huge difference.

        “Which is exactly what Jobs has managed to do and you – a psuedo-rationalist – just suck it all up and do the same: guilt by association.”

        There is nothing pseudo in my discussion.

        Adobe Flash is guilty by the number of zero-day attacks in the last 24 months.

        “I don’t like name calling but at least you know that’s all it is – just hot air.”

        Nope. Those zero-day defects in Adobe Flash are all very real.

        Do you keep yourself up-to-date on computer security defects? Do you listen to the “Security Now!” podcast? Are you not astonished about the large number of zero-day bugs in Adobe’s products?

      • “1. This isn’t a rhetorical question as I’m sure you are correct: but where I can read the claim by Adobe?”

        Please google on

        site:adobe.com “full web browsing”

        And you will see a raft of Adobe’s claims that Flash is essential to get the “full web” experience in a browser.

        “2. So Jobs pushed back? By trashing Flash.”

        He openly challenged Adobe’s conjecture that Flash is somehow essential to get the “full web” experience.

        As I have noted, there would have been huge downside to including Flash with Safari with the iPhone in 2007. With 20/20 hindsight, we can clearly say that Jobs’s objections to Flash in the browser were right on target.

        “Gosh – he must have been upset with Adobe’s claims.”

        He is upset with Adobe’s claims because they are false. Owners of the 200M+ iOS devices have no problem viewing video on their handheld computers.

        If users actually thought that Flash was essential to the “full web” experience, Apple couldn’t have had the phenomenal success on the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad.

        RIMM’s advertising campaign for the Playbook is centered on the presence of Flash on their tablet computer. How is that working out for them? As far as I’ve heard, Playbook sales are a huge disappointment. End users don’t give a hoot about Flash on handheld devices.

      • “Creating HTML5 from flash code isn’t a loss for Flash. That’s a win for Flash.”

        Incorrect. It’s an acknowledgment by Adobe that the *only* way to have “universal” code is to deliver it in HTML5 and not in Flash.

        In other words, the presence of that cross-compiler belies their claim that Flash is essential for the “full web browsing” experience.

        Carl: if people think that Flash is the Alpha and Omega of development environments, that’s just great. If they believe that cross-compiled Flash apps will dominate the Android and iOS App Stores, power to them. The marketplace will sort all of that out. I personally don’t think that Flash apps will ever dominate those marketplaces, but it really doesn’t matter to me.

        My sole objection was Adobe’s claim that Flash was somehow essential to the web browsing experience. It is not.

        “Flash is a tool for producers. The flash runtime is just the consumer end of that pipeline. If one can target HTML5, or iOS apps, or desktop apps, using Flash then that will be a success for Flash. Not a failure.”

        Do you think that Flash apps will actually have a significant impact on the iOS App Store?

      • “ ‘I was pointing out the absurdity of your conjecture. If success were a vector for attack, then we would be having widespread attacks on the 200M+ iOS devices.’ ”

        “How do we know we’re not?”

        There are no widespread attacks. I personally stay current in the industry by following the podcasts MacBreak Weekly, Security Now!, and the website macrumors.com. If there were any widespread attacks, they would be tracked on each of those sources.

        “It’s just a theory of mine anyway – that success breeds attacks.”

        Visibility is one factor, but only one factor.

        The argument has been around for years. People have constantly claimed that MacOS has been “safe” because it is not prominent enough. But Apple’s market share has been growing year after year, and the demographics of its users would be extremely attractive to hack attacks.

        Over time, one must conclude that MacOS is indeed a visible platform and there are still no widespread virus attacks.

  • All I know is you can play flash based games in a browser and it has the potential to bring ANY computer to its knees at some point. And my wife has the first Droid, running flash on it was a disaster for her browser speed and responsiveness, and 10 times the amount of crap loaded for every page. That’s when I learned I didn’t care about flash.

  • Comment 5:

    “Did you notice that Adobe never provided the click-to-Flash capability? Third-party vendors had to create plugins to muzzle Flash. This points to a general failing of Adobe: their customer is developers and not on the end-user experience. Flash apps should NOT run because some website developer thinks I want them to run on my PC; they should only run because I want them to run!”

    Websites are built by those who build websites. The internet is built by those who build the internet. Cars are built by those who build cars.

    I don’t like car steering wheels. Cars shouldn’t have steering wheels. Why should I have to remove the steering wheel from every car I buy? Why can’t car manufacturer’s have cars where you can opt out of having a steering wheel?

    • “Websites are built by those who build websites. The internet is built by those who build the internet. Cars are built by those who build cars. I don’t like car steering wheels. Cars shouldn’t have steering wheels. Why should I have to remove the steering wheel from every car I buy? Why can’t car manufacturer’s have cars where you can opt out of having a steering wheel?”

      I have no idea what your point is. Cars can’t function without a steering wheel.

      My point about Flash is that Adobe’s focus on its customers (web developers) is actually cross-purpose to the end user experience. End users are far better off to muzzle Flash advertising with click-to-flash plugins.

      I used to be annoyed by Flash advertising on website. Now, I love it! All I see is a small plain box. An ever-growing percentage of users are muzzling all Flash ads with click-to-flash plugins. They certainly don’t characterize Flash advertising as part of their “full web browsing” experience.

      • “I have no idea what your point is. Cars can’t function without a steering wheel.”

        Which is why I don’t like them.

      • ” ‘I have no idea what your point is. Cars can’t function without a steering wheel.’ ”
        “Which is why I don’t like them.”

        Carl, do you use a click-to-flash blocker?

  • Comment 7:

    “I believe he is correct in his memo. I made a long posting commenting on why I think he’s correct on each of his points. If you disagree with Jobs’s points, the way to do that is to quote what Jobs said and explain why you disagree. That would be the rational way to have a discussion about this, right?”

    I’d like to to go through Jobs “memo” and raise points but many have already done so and I don’t have much more to add except that I’ve seen the results of that “memo” -irrational guilt by association extrapolations. It was really quite a nasty thing to do whichever way you read it. But that’s what companies do. They trash the opposition when they can. I’m not doing anything different here. I’m trashing Jobs. Not that it really means anything. He just gets under my skin – just like Flash obvioiusly got under his.

    So I might just backtrack here and like Jobs, make ammends. But not without a few more digs. Here is one response to Jobs “memo” that is a reasonable read:

    http://www.osnews.com/story/23224/Jobs_on_Flash_Hypocrisy_So_Thick_You_Could_Cut_it_with_a_Knife

    Note that this isn’t about defending Flash – it’s about deconstructing Jobs highly political and hypocritical “memo”. I’ll dig up more, and might make a go of it myself.

  • Dr Phil asks “Do you think that Flash apps will actually have a significant impact on the iOS App Store?”

    I say: “who cares?”. Adobe might but I’m not Adobe. I’m a developer. A bad apple can be written in ObjectiveC. Does that mean we should throw out ObjectiveC? No of course not. We would throw it out because it’s a silly language. Myself I’d use C# to write apps rather than Flash.

    But when available I’d certainly use Flash (ie. Actionscript) to author the HTML5 runtime. No problem at all.

    • “Dr Phil asks ‘Do you think that Flash apps will actually have a significant impact on the iOS App Store?’ ”

      Dr. Phil is not participating in this discussion. Please avoid name-calling. Thanks.

      “I say: ‘who cares?’. Adobe might but I’m not Adobe. I’m a developer.”

      You’ve told us how wonderful you think the Flash cross-development environment is. But if the Flash environment doesn’t help developers sell their software in the app store, then what’s the point?

      “A bad apple can be written in ObjectiveC. Does that mean we should throw out ObjectiveC? No of course not.”

      This argument is missing the point. The question is if Adobe’s environment actually gives developers an edge in delivering their app to multiple platforms. You seem to think it does. However, if what is delivered is only viewed as mediocre by the marketplace, then what advantage does that development environment provide?

      “We would throw it out because it’s a silly language.”

      There are plenty of superior applications for the Mac and for iOS devices written in ObjectiveC. If you think you can deliver better apps by coding them in some other language, have at it.

      Until I see Flash apps demonstrating success in the iOS App Store, I will remain skeptical.

      • For every sucessful app written in ObjectiveC there will be many more that are duds. Suppose the top 10 apps were written in ObjectiveC. What then are the remaining apps written in? Many of those would also be in ObjectiveC – and there would be far more than 10 of them. So to say that many superior apps are written in ObjectiveC says nothing at all.

      • “For every successful app written in ObjectiveC there will be many more that are duds. Suppose the top 10 apps were written in ObjectiveC. What then are the remaining apps written in? Many of those would also be in ObjectiveC – and there would be far more than 10 of them. So to say that many superior apps are written in ObjectiveC says nothing at all.”

        Nonsense. It says that competent developers can indeed create superior apps in Objective C.

        You seem to think that Flash is a superior environment for creating applications. If that is the case, we should begin to see a flood of apps being cross-ported to the iOS App Store, right? They should start to appear in the list of top 1000 apps, right?

        When should we start to see this happen, Carl?

      • Well Mr Superior – if you weren’t getting yourself in such a knot you would see I said I preferred C# rather than Flash for app dev.

      • “Well Mr Superior – if you weren’t getting yourself in such a knot you would see I said I preferred C# rather than Flash for app dev.”

        I already asked you to avoid the name-calling in the discussion. Please stop.

        Given the quality of the apps produced, it’s clear that the ObjectiveC development environment is certainly a competent tool to generate apps for the Mac and iOS devices.

        Whether or not you use it personally, you have told us that you think the Adobe environment is a superior. You have also implied that ObjectiveC is somehow inferior. If your claims are really true, then it should be a slam-dunk for developers to create superior apps for iOS with Adobe’s tools, right?

      • Where have I ever said Adobe tools are superior?

        All tools have their pros and cons, except ObjectiveC – it’s just all con.

        But really – take that for what it is – just a stupid slur on my behalf. It’s not worth getting in a knot over. In reality ObjectiveC is just fine. I just find it very clumsy. Just think of that as a shortcoming with me – that I’ve got the problem with ObjectiveC rather than it’s got a problem. I’m going to take a break from this – it’s been good duelling with you – and you’ve made some good points. Have a read of that first link I posted – it’s really quite informative – much better than my stupid slangings. cheers.

      • Abode cross-coding solution is clearly superior in ressource saving.
        Only one dev with one skill – AS3 – is needed to make in nearly one programming task where it should be needed 3 devs (JAVA, AS3, Obj C) or one with better salary (cause more skilled) without the cross coding solution.

        So I bet a lot of company will make this choice, even if the quality is under – and that quality problem is not proven (I made some tests, and I think it’s really a good solution, from what I tried).

      • “But really – take that for what it is – just a stupid slur on my behalf.”

        The problem has been your excessive number of slurs. You demonized Jobs’s 2010 memo about Adobe and Flash, but never justified that demonization. You claimed that Jobs and Apple was a hypocrite over its “open” claims, but never explained why.

      • “Abode cross-coding solution is clearly superior in ressource saving.”

        It’s only a superior approach if the generated code is better than mediocre. If the code performs poorly as iOS apps, then it will never be popular. Native ObjectiveC apps will win out. The same thing applies to the Android App Stores: if the generated code is worse than native apps, it will never take off.

        Have there been any exemplary Flash apps cross-compiled to iOS? How are they doing in the app store?

        “So I bet a lot of company will make this choice, even if the quality is under – and that quality problem is not proven (I made some tests, and I think it’s really a good solution, from what I tried).”

        How do you quantify your bet? How and by when will we know if your bet is correct?

        Did you quiz any iOS users to see if your solutions work well for them? Is your app in the App Store?

      • Beside my other comment (under this one), here’s a link for you :
        http://gregsramblings.com/2011/06/28/adobe-flex-app-is-the-1-news-app-in-itunes-app-store/

  • I was talking about human and money ressources. I think apps generated with flash builders have same behavior in ressource cost if they are well done.

    The adobe apps will be in app store soon, be patient. (september i think: let the devs some time to work ! One of mine will be for october (but in private store, sorry) and another later this year. Theese two ones will be at the same time on IOS, Android and Desktop pc. I have some other project, all of them using flash builder 4.5, and could land on all possibles devices, including PC desktop. I hope (and i’m pretty sure) my boss will like them.

    The compagny I work for could not invest in a Objective C developer. But now, we responds to a lot of apps demands from our clients.

    I can’t repond to all your questions, i’m sorry. But your questions are not arguments to me, only a sign that you’ve said all that you could.

    Maybe you could now let other share they thoughts, and experiences about all this exiting subject ? There’s no need to counter every one here : we now all know your point.

    • “I was talking about human and money ressources. I think apps generated with flash builders have same behavior in ressource cost if they are well done.”

      In other words, the big unknown is if the cross-compiler environment detracts from the user experience on the specific platforms. Will the apps be sufficiently fast? Does the UI for the app work in such a way that users of the particular devices are satisfied with the user experience? Do the specific features of each environment (android, iOS, etc.) work seamlessly and correctly in these cross-ported apps? These questions are wide open at this point.

      Unless the answer to each is “yes”, odds are low that such cross-developed apps will have a major impact on the iOS app store.

      “The company I work for could not invest in a Objective C developer. But now, we responds to a lot of apps demands from our clients.”

      “We responds”???

      See above. Companies will hire offshore vendors to port apps if the apps they develop are commercially viable. If those apps are not commercially viable, then companies will shift to vendors who hire or invest in ObjectiveC skills for their employees.

      “Maybe you could now let other share they thoughts, and experiences about all this exiting subject ?”

      There’s no reason for me to exit from this exciting subject; anyone is welcome to share their thoughts.

      With regards to http://gregsramblings.com/2011/06/28/adobe-flex-app-is-the-1-news-app-in-itunes-app-store/ , I went to Greg’s website and the App Store site for the politifact mobile app. I noticed both old and new reviews noting that the app crashes when a user receives a text notification when running the app. I asked Greg if he has confirmed the bug and if the bug is a problem in his code or a larger bug in the entire cross-development environment.

      If this is a bug in the cross-development environment, this is exactly the kind of black eye that Adobe cannot afford. I cannot fathom how Adobe would have released this environment without making darn sure that iOS 5 notifications worked correctly for apps. That would back up the criticisms that Jobs has been making for years about the quality of Adobe’s products.

      • politifact app was number 1.
        And this one : http://www.countthedots.com/ ?
        There are many more.

        Cross coding apps ARE on the appstore and ARE successfull.
        You’re not going to admit it, uh ?

        Ok, Phil
        ;)

      • “politifact app was number 1.”

        From what I see in appshopper.com, politifact was #77 in the app store on June 20th, hovered around #94 for a couple of days after, and subsequently dropped out of the top 200 altogether. It was never ever close to #1.

        What source do you have that claims the app was #1?

        “There are many more.
        Cross coding apps ARE on the appstore and ARE successfull.”

        I spelled out my criteria for successful apps in my earlier posting today. Did you read it? Do you have any response to my detailed commentary in my message of July 18, 2011 at 7:35 am ?

        I just downloaded the app SimpleFitnessTimer. I also downloaded the app iPUSHTest to generate push notifications on my iPod Touch.

        When I queue a notification to fire off 1 minute later, SimpleFitnessTimer craps out when the iPod Touch receives the notification: the timer stops. The free app StopWatch works just fine when it gets notifications; it does not stop. The app “Tabata Pro” also works just fine.

        There appears to be a problem when these cross-compiled apps get notifications. Have you noticed that?

        “You’re not going to admit it, uh ?”

        I’m trying to have a give-and-take discussion with you. So far, you are behaving in a trollish fashion. Please stop acting like a troll and start responding to my questions.

        To answer your question: I do not consider any iOS app as successful if it fails to correctly handle notifications correctly. I consider it buggy and worthy of a 1-star review. As I noted earlier today, this is the exact kind of problem that Jobs feared if he allows these cross-development tools: they will not behave correctly in the specific environments.

        I cannot fathom how Adobe would release this cross-development tool without ensuring that iOS notifications worked correctly in cross-ported apps. Can you?

        That’s about 8 questions in my two messages today. Let’s see how many of them you can address. I have addressed your questions. Thanks, Frederic.

        –phil

      • Phil said: “When I queue a notification to fire off 1 minute later, SimpleFitnessTimer craps out when the iPod Touch receives the notification: the timer stops. The free app StopWatch works just fine when it gets notifications; it does not stop. The app “Tabata Pro” also works just fine.”

        Without any evidence whatsoever Phil goes into “guilt by association” mode and suggests the likely reason for the bug is “cross-compilation” environment. Does it ever occur to him that app developers might play a role in app development – that the app developer could also be responsible for the bug? No.

        “There appears to be a problem” Phil says, “when these cross-compiled apps get notifications.”

        And to give it the status of a possible fact he goes on to say: “Have you noticed that?”

        Well I’ve been looking for notifications of this particular bug in cross-complied apps and haven’t yet found any. Perhaps Phil could show us the list of such reports. Otherwise I’d have to say that not only have I not noticed it (yet), but neither has he.

      • “Without any evidence whatsoever Phil goes into ‘guilt by association’ mode and suggests the likely reason for the bug is ‘cross-compilation’ environment.”

        I see two applications that both behave badly when they get a notifications. At the very least, we’re dealing with sloppy programmers who failed to test a most basic scenario: what happens when your app gets a notification while running. One of those was a paid app; I can’t quite believe that the developers failed to do this most rudimentary of testing.

        It’s perfectly natural to consider the possibility that there are bugs in the cross-development environment.

        “Does it ever occur to him that app developers might play a role in app development – that the app developer could also be responsible for the bug? No.”

        You can’t read. I said, “IF this is a bug in the cross-development environment”.

        “There appears to be a problem” Phil says, “when these cross-compiled apps get notifications.”

        That is correct. There IS a problem when those cross-compiled apps get notifications.

        “And to give it the status of a possible fact he goes on to say: ‘Have you noticed that?'”

        I’ll repeat: there IS a problem when these cross-compiled apps get notifications.

        “Well I’ve been looking for notifications of this particular bug in cross-complied apps and haven’t yet found any. Perhaps Phil could show us the list of such reports.”

        SimpleFItnessTimer fails when it gets a notification: the timer stops. The developer has acknowledged the bug.

        Politifact fails when it gets a notification: it crashes when the notification window is dismissed. The developer has acknowledged the bug.

        Carl: there’s no reason for the hostile attitude here. If you have a question, just ask it.

  • I didn’t ask you anything – Ok, nothing seriously – Phil.
    As i said, we all know your point. And we all know you will never change your mind.
    I respect this. Maybe one day, you will play my apps, who knows ?

    • “I didn’t ask you anything – Ok, nothing seriously – Phil.”

      That would be my definition of trolling. Cut it out.

      “And we all know you will never change your mind.”

      Change my mind about what? My point was that a Flash app must be awfully good to be viewed as superior by the marketplace in the iOS App Store.

      Do you know the difference between an app ranked #77 (for one day) and one actually ranked #1?

      • Phil said: “Change my mind about what? My point was that a Flash app must be awfully good to be viewed as superior by the marketplace in the iOS App Store.”

        The same can be said for Objective C apps as well – they too would have to be “awfully good” to be viewed as “superior” by the marketplace.

      • “The same can be said for Objective C apps as well – they too would have to be ‘awfully good’ to be viewed as ‘superior’ by the marketplace.”

        Correct. Here are some measures for superior apps — and a superior marketplace:

        200M+ Devices Sold
        425,000 applications
        100,000 iPad-specific applications
        15 Billion application downloads
        $2.5 Billion sent out to developers

        Did you see the press release earlier this month when the 15B download threshold was crossed?

        Carl, I have no idea what your point is. The iOS App Store has been tremendously successful for Apple and tremendously successful for developers. It’s also tremendously successful for middleman websites like appshopper.com that help users find the apps they’re looking for. Most importantly, it’s tremendously successful for users for the great diversity of free and paid apps available.

        The app store provides a way to find those superior apps in thousands of different areas.

      • I like the app store as well. What’s that got to do with the price of fish in China?

      • In response to my questioning why Phil singles out flash as anything to do (or not) with the road to success (when the same applies to native apps) he responds with :

        a. a contradiction – he both agrees and disagrees that there is no difference between flash and objectiveC in terms of creating a superior app
        b. a list of success points for the app store – as if that is somehow relevant
        c. expresses his inability to understand my point (no doubt a rhetorical admission of stupidity than a real one).

      • “I like the app store as well. What’s that got to do with the price of fish in China?”

        Earlier in the day, you had said:

        “The same can be said for Objective C apps as well – they too would have to be ‘awfully good’ to be viewed as ‘superior’ by the marketplace.”

        The point is that those Objective C apps have ALREADY been viewed as superior by the marketplace.

        Odds are low that a significant number of Flash apps cross-compiled for the iOS store will ever displace those already-superior ObjectiveC apps.

      • Phil says “The point is that those Objective C apps have ALREADY been viewed as superior by the marketplace.”

        But what makes an app “superior”? If it’s the framework (ObjectiveC) then ALL ObjectiveC apps would be superior. Clearly they are not. So it has nothing to do with the framework. You can make a successful app in any framework Apple allows. The success or failure of the app has nothing to do with the framework in which it is built.

        It has to do with ideas and the way in which the market responds to those ideas. Of course, if the marketplace were full of Phil clones then they’d all be checking the sticker on the side to see if they were made in ObjectiveC. And declared superior or otherwise accordingly.

      • “In response to my questioning why Phil singles out flash as anything to do (or not) with the road to success (when the same applies to native apps)”

        Actually, I’ve never explicitly singled out Flash as having a difficult road to success in the iOS app store. Any sort of one-size-fits-all environment for cross-compiling apps for many environments is going to have difficulty creating superior apps to native iOS apps coded in the Apple xcode development environment.

        For example, if there were a Java-based cross-coding environment, it would have similar problems to Flash cross-coding.

        “a. a contradiction – he both agrees and disagrees that there is no difference between flash and objectiveC in terms of creating a superior app”

        No. I never ever said that. Carl, you have a massive misunderstanding. There is a huge difference between the two.

        Readers: note that Carl failed to quote any statement I made; he’s pulling this idea out of thin air.

        “b. a list of success points for the app store – as if that is somehow relevant”

        Of course it is relavent! You said: “The same can be said for Objective C apps as well – they too would have to be ‘awfully good’ to be viewed as ‘superior’ by the marketplace.” But we already know that the apps created in the xcode ObjectiveC environment are being viewed as “superior” by the marketplace. 425k applications. 100k ipad-specific apps. 200M devices sold. 15B app downloads. And $2.5B sent out to developers. This is an unprecedented success story for independent developers.

        “c. expresses his inability to understand my point (no doubt a rhetorical admission of stupidity than a real one).”

        The xcode ObjectiveC development environment has already proven itself for iOS devices. It has been massively successful for Apple, and massively successful for independent developers. Even though Flash has been around for far longer, no channel has ever had a fraction of the success that the iOS App Store has for independent developers.

        I’m highly skeptical that the Flash cross-coding environment will ever be successful in this environment. I’m skeptical that any significant number of Flash apps will make inroads on the established ObjectiveC apps in the App Store. I’ve discussed several of the reasons in this comment thread.

        Do you think otherwise? Could you please list five or six reasons for that thinking?

        Carl: the main thing I’ve seen in this discussion is that you seem like a rather angry person. You were angry about Jobs’s 2010 piece “Thoughts on Flash” — specifically Jobs’s “open” comments — and never explained the reasoning behind your anger. In this part of the discussion, you again seem quite angry, but you’ve been unable to provide us with reasoning why you think that Flash apps will be able to displace the very-successful existing apps in the iOS app store.

      • “Phil says, ‘The point is that those Objective C apps have ALREADY been viewed as superior by the marketplace.’ ”

        “But what makes an app “superior”? If it’s the framework (ObjectiveC) then ALL ObjectiveC apps would be superior.”

        That’s a rather sophomoric logical fallacy. Here’s another one: if fluency in a language was the only thing required for superior writing, then every poem that anyone wrote would sound like it came from e e cummings.

        Do you now see the absurdity of your conjecture?

        “Clearly they are not. So it has nothing to do with the framework.”

        You have a flaw in your thinking. Poor applications can be written in any language; the fact that poor apps can be written in a language says nothing about the ability to write superior apps in that language.

        The evidence we have that superior apps exist for iOS is the massive success of the iOS App Store — $2.4B to app developers so far.

        “You can make a successful app in any framework Apple allows.”

        That is your conjecture. The logic train wreck you proposed above does nothing to support that conjecture.

        “The success or failure of the app has nothing to do with the framework in which it is built.”

        This is a restating of your conjecture. Again, you’ve provided no reasoning to support it.

        “It has to do with ideas and the way in which the market responds to those ideas.”

        It’s possible for Flash apps to displace the thousands of highly-successful apps in the App store. If *you* think it’s likely for Flash apps to do that on the iOS App Store, please provide us with five or six reasons why you think that.

        What specific predictions do you have for the success of Flash apps in six month’s time in the iOS App Store?

      • I will now play with your writing technics :

        Phil says : ” That’s a rather sophomoric logical fallacy. Here’s another one: if fluency in a language was the only thing required for superior writing, then every poem that anyone wrote would sound like it came from e e cummings.
        Do you now see the absurdity of your conjecture?”

        This is well written, but it does seems to be a technical fact to me.
        This response serves nothing but your ego, Phil.

        Phil Said : “You have a flaw in your thinking. Poor applications can be written in any language; the fact that poor apps can be written in a language says nothing about the ability to write superior apps in that language.
        The evidence we have that superior apps exist for iOS is the massive success of the iOS App Store — $2.4B to app developers so far.”

        Here, i’m on your side (I’m sure you’ll feel like a winner after that). But this has nothing to do with development language, it’s only because the device is a really good device.

        Carl said : ““The success or failure of the app has nothing to do with the framework in which it is built.”
        And Phil responded : “This is a restating of your conjecture. Again, you’ve provided no reasoning to support it.”

        Ok, take “Angry bird”. Really impressive succesfull app. Succesfull on IOs, Android, PC, succesfull everywhere. So it did not succeded by the language it was written with, but only cause it’s a good game !

        Phils asked : “What specific predictions do you have for the success of Flash apps in six month’s time in the iOS App Store?”

        Here’s mine : Adobe Apps could get 10% of the apps in the two next years (only, yes, but apps are here since quite a while, now, Obj C apps will always have this advantage) But they will never stop their progress.

        Why ? Because these apps are chipper to make (only one language), and can be on IOS, Android, and PC. I repeat : AND PC.
        It’s a big advantage, with minimal coding. More and more devs will do that. I will.

        Angry bird was developed in three languages (java, Obj C, AS3) where it could now be made with only one : Actionscript 3.

        Phil, now, try to respond without asking me questions. Facts.

      • “Phil says : ‘That’s a rather sophomoric logical fallacy. Here’s another one: if fluency in a language was the only thing required for superior writing, then every poem that anyone wrote would sound like it came from e e cummings.
        Do you now see the absurdity of your conjecture?’ ”

        “This is well written, but it does seems to be a technical fact to me.”

        Something gets lost in translation in your response. Carl claimed, “If it’s the framework (ObjectiveC) then ALL ObjectiveC apps would be superior.” The claim makes absolutely no sense to anybody. Carl can’t explain it. You can’t explain it. Nobody can explain it.

        “Here, i’m on your side (I’m sure you’ll feel like a winner after that). But this has nothing to do with development language, it’s only because the device is a really good device.”

        A critical part of the success is the development environment and a rich set of APIs. It sounds like you’re blind to that part of the equation.

        Carl said : “The success or failure of the app has nothing to do with the framework in which it is built.”
        And Phil responded : “This is a restating of your conjecture. Again, you’ve provided no reasoning to support it.”
        “Ok, take “Angry bird”. Really impressive successful app. Successful on IOs, Android, PC, successful everywhere. So it did not succeeded by the language it was written with, but only cause it’s a good game !”

        The Angry Birds developers re-coded their app for each native environment. They did not use some “one size fits all” global source and cross-compile that code for the different platforms; they used custom code for each platform.

        “Phils asked : ‘What specific predictions do you have for the success of Flash apps in six month’s time in the iOS App Store?’ ”
        “Here’s mine : Adobe Apps could get 10% of the apps in the two next years (only, yes, but apps are here since quite a while, now, Obj C apps will always have this advantage) But they will never stop their progress.”

        Since it’s easy to cross-compile and Apple has low standards, it’s conceivable that some vast number of Flash apps could be compiled for this environment. You made no distinction between Flash apps that are simply submitted and those that are actually successful in the iOS store. I cannot possibly see how 10% of the successful apps would be coded in Flash.

        “Why ? Because these apps are chipper to make (only one language), and can be on IOS, Android, and PC. I repeat : AND PC.”

        If those apps work poorly on iOS compared to the native apps, they will never be successful on that platform.

        “It’s a big advantage, with minimal coding. More and more devs will do that. I will.”

        If the apps are junky, very few will spend money for them. The apps will fail to be competitive against the established, well-coded programs that effectively use Apple’s APIs in the iOS App Store.

        Why would Flash developers continue to submit their apps if they are not successful? Do they enjoy tilting at windmills?

        “Angry bird was developed in three languages (java, Obj C, AS3) where it could now be made with only one : Actionscript 3.”

        That is your conjecture, and it is pure speculation. There are no cross-platform games that have anywhere near the commercial success of Angry Birds. That’s a fact.

        The Angry Birds folk have no plans to consolidate their code under Flash — or any other one-size-fits-all environment. Doing something like that would be suicidal to their business.

        “Phil, now, try to respond without asking me questions. Facts.”

        Here’s a fact: the politifact app was never #1 in the iOS App Store. It was #77 for one day, around #94 for a couple of days, and then completely dropped out of the top 200. When you told us that the politifact app was #1, you were mistaken.

      • “A critical part of the success is the development environment and a rich set of APIs. It sounds like you’re blind to that part of the equation.”

        You’re wrong, it has always been the idea. Only the idea. Take theese games : Tetris, Pacman, Minecraft, Civilization, Elite, Angry Birds, puzzle bubble. They would have been succesfull no matter the environment they would be developed with. My girldfriend and my little sister still plays a clone of puzzle bubble on facebook. Only cause it’s a good concept.
        And it will always be a good concept, no matter the device or the language.
        Could you bring some fact to your point ?

        “The Angry Birds developers re-coded their app for each native environment. They did not use some “one size fits all” global source and cross-compile that code for the different platforms; they used custom code for each platform.”

        That what I said, you did not understood me. (I’m french and my english may be bad, sorry).
        Angry Birds cost 100 000 euros to Rovio. This would have been severely less, in money and in time if they could have made it in AS3 only. If the tech would have been here they would have used it when they were smaller. Mathematics and economics…

        “The Angry Birds folk have no plans to consolidate their code under Flash — or any other one-size-fits-all environment.”

        No, sure they haven’t. The game is done. They are rich : 50 millions ! They can bough any developpers, now.
        But a small agency, will surely save money by using only one AS3 devs team instead of 3 différents teams (Androids, IOS, AS3). It would be a too big investment. Adobe tools works ! It would be a really bad choice not considering using it.

        “Here’s a fact: the politifact app was never #1 in the iOS App Store. It was #77 for one day, around #94 for a couple of days, and then completely dropped out of the top 200. When you told us that the politifact app was #1, you were mistaken.”

        You already said that, Phil. I understood the first time, nothing new ?
        I have, look this screenshoot :
        http://gregsramblings.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/politifact.jpg
        Oh, read the “top charts” column : oh it’s the politifacts app, and it’s number 1… No ?

        Ok I stop there, i just wanted to show you I could use your methods. It leads nowhere to talk to you, Phil. You say nothing here, except “Hey ! Look ! I’m just another Apple Fanboy !”

        If you weren’t, you would have consider our points. Just a little. You did not.

      • ” ‘A critical part of the success is the development environment and a rich set of APIs. It sounds like you’re blind to that part of the equation.’ ”
        “You’re wrong, it has always been the idea.”

        Here’s the fundamental problem: the only access that a Flash app has to the rich APIs are the parts that Adobe gives you access to. You only have access to that subset of the APIs, and you can only use it the way that Adobe dictates.

        In iOS 5, apps will have the ability to store data in the iCloud for backup and to sync with other instances of the app on other machines (including Macs). How will a Flash app with no awareness of iOS know to use this service? How will it be cognizant whether the app is running on iOS 4 or iOS 5? How do services like that map to the Flash experience?

        Look at an app like Tabata Pro, an iOS app that I consider as the Gold Standard for tababa-style training. Then look at the Flash-ported app SimpleFitnessTimer. See how the UI works in both apps. See what happens when you get a notification in SFT. Look at how clean the settings and display work on Tabata Pro — how you get an even bigger time display if you rotate to landscape mode. See how Tabata Pro will run completely in the background if you want to run the app that way. Is it even possible to craft a Flash app to behave that way on the iOS platform?

        “Only the idea. Take theese games : Tetris, Pacman, Minecraft, Civilization, Elite, Angry Birds, puzzle bubble. They would have been successful no matter the environment they would be developed with.”

        This argument is the tail wagging the dog. There is no evidence that commercial Flash games would be well-received as paid iOS apps.

        Angry Birds was ported to each different programming environment. No one-size-fits-all like Flash was used to port the app to the platforms.

        “And it will always be a good concept, no matter the device or the language.”

        Then why has nobody ever had anything approaching the commercial success of Angry Birds with a Flash-based game?

        “Could you bring some fact to your point ?”

        Go read my posting of July 19, 2011 at 10:12 am. You fail to comprehend the difference between a fact and a feeling. You are becoming a troll in the discussion.

        “Angry Birds cost 100 000 euros to Rovio. This would have been severely less, in money and in time if they could have made it in AS3 only. ”

        There is no guarantee at all that they would have had the success if their code was based in Flash.

        Where are the great Flash-based games on iOS? If it really is trivial to deliver great Flash-based games to iOS, where are they?

        “If the tech would have been here they would have used it when they were smaller. Mathematics and economics…”

        The tech IS here now. You have a bit of a dilemma to explain: if game development really is a superior way to develop iOS games, where are the games?

        “But a small agency, will surely save money by using only one AS3 devs team instead of 3 différents teams (Androids, IOS, AS3). It would be a too big investment. Adobe tools works ! It would be a really bad choice not considering using it.”

        If “works” means to deliver a games that compete with established iOS games, then nobody knows if the Adobe tools actually “work” that way?

        Where are the people who already have their completed Flash games? What are they waiting for?

        ” ‘Here’s a fact: the politifact app was never #1 in the iOS App Store. It was #77 for one day, around #94 for a couple of days, and then completely dropped out of the top 200. When you told us that the politifact app was #1, you were mistaken.’ ”

        “You already said that, Phil. I understood the first time, nothing new ?”

        You have never publicly acknowledged your mistake in the discussion.

        In your message of July 18, 2011 at 8:05 am, you said: “politifact app was number 1″. You didn’t qualify that statement saying that you were talking about a very small segment of the iOS App Store. The News Apps section is so small that the #1 app in that section rarely makes it to the top 200 apps in the app store.

        “I have, look this screenshoot :”

        Greg was careful to say he was talking about a SMALL segment of the App Store. You were not; you just said, “politifact app was number 1″. You failed to give us the units for your ordinal.

        You are the one who told us “Wow ! No fact here ! No facts at all ! Only YOUR mood, wich is followed by some apple fans.” I then deconstructed that claim in my message of July 19, 2011 at 10:12 am.

        The trollish messages are getting tiresome, Frederic. I’ve given you plenty of facts; you’re just not interested in hearing them.

        If there already existed competitive Flash apps, why haven’t their developers ALREADY released them into the iOS App Store? What would they be waiting for?

        If there exist competitive Flash apps, we should know about them very rapidly. If Flash apps are ready to go, what sense would it make for the devs to wait?

      • Are you sure I am the troll, here ?
        You are the best I’ve seen, I admit, but YOU attacked fisrt, and YOU attacked everyone who where not in your point for days, never let anything that is not in your vision of the world just existing.
        You share nothing, saying always the same thing.

        But you made it well, congrats, you’re a great troll, phil.
        I’m sure you’ll be happy to have the last word…
        Profites-en, mon ami ! Et aurevoir !

      • “Are you sure I am the troll, here ?”

        Yes. In your message posted at July 19, 2011 at 8:27 am, you said:

        “Wow ! No fact here ! No facts at all ! Only YOUR mood, wich is followed by some apple fans.”

        I replied in my message posted at July 19, 2011 at 10:12 am which listed about a dozen major facts from the “No fact here!” message. Apparently, you could not see a single one of those facts.

        That is the behavior of a troll.

        “You share nothing, saying always the same thing.”

        That is also false. Earlier today, I made an entirely new point in the discussion. I’ll repeat it here:

        Look at an app like Tabata Pro, an iOS app that I consider as the Gold Standard for tababa-style training. Then look at the Flash-ported app SimpleFitnessTimer. See how the UI works in both apps. See what happens when you get a notification in SFT. Look at how clean the settings and display work on Tabata Pro — how you get an even bigger time display if you rotate to landscape mode. See how Tabata Pro will run completely in the background if you want to run the app that way. Is it even possible to craft a Flash app to behave that way on the iOS platform?

        “I’m sure you’ll be happy to have the last word…”

        Are you able to tell the difference between apps like Tabata Pro and SimpleFitnessTimer? Do you see how one has the iOS feel and one has the feel of a GenericHandheldApp?

        Could you imagine that anyone would prefer an app like SimpleFitnessTimer?

        Those two apps show the essence of the gargantuan task that Flash developers have to overcome. They only have access to a small subset of the iOS APIs, yet they must compete against apps that have access to the entire set of public APIs.

        If, say, Flash games were viable iOS competitors, where are they in the popularity charts? This should be GOLD RUSH time for those who have excellent Flash apps to have them be IMMEDIATELY available on the iOS App Store. Developers should be rushing to stake their claim — and rake in their millions, right? According to you, they should be displacing iOS apps already in place.

        Where are those Flash apps?

  • Saulo Signore Zacanini July 18, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    The diference between website on 2- and 3- generation is clear. * Besides you can’t make a blind see, so put a simple text on tags. For security reasons, just go throught the bank (change the method of payment).

  • The latest Flash Player 11 Beta has been released. Support for hardware 3D being the biggest thing. HTML5 has support for 3D but the tools to leverage that support are not as ready as Flash.

  • Where did Flash come from? How did it emerge? What is it’s place within the history of the web? To understand this requires an understanding of the early days of the web – of what was available when the web came into existence.

    The early days were an exciting time. For artists and designers, however, it was a very dull space. You could spice it up somewhat with jpegs, gifs, and a variation of limited fonts – but what was missing was the ability to generate graphics computationally, ie. vector graphics.

    Java was one solution. Flash was another. The reason Flash won the day is that artists and designers of the day (and even now) just don’t relate to programming languages. Flash provided a way to author compelling graphics and animation without such knowledge.

    It was really quite shocking to see the first flash animations. Knowing how long it took to download a jpeg, it seemed as if flash was doing something magical. Incredibly small file sizes and incredibly expressive results. Artists and designers adopted flash (the authoring tool) immediately. It provided a way of doing something special on the web – seemingly impossible.

    Flash was saying that the web needn’t be just a set of hyperlinked but otherwise plain looking documents. It could also be something artistic – and in a particularly digital sense. Instead of “dumb” bitmap graphics, it could deliver computer generated graphics (vector graphics).

    Flash became an important part of the web’s history because it provided a way for artists and designers to have a more meaningful role.

    FIFTEEN YEARS later some of the same capabilities are being built into browsers under the name of HTML5.

    But where are the tools to leverage that capability from an art and design perspective? Flash was not only a browser plugin providing capabilities that the browser didn’t, but a set of tools to leverage that additional capability – to author work that made use of such additional capability.

    Tools for authoring HTML5 with the same artistic and technical intelligence as Flash will no doubt emerge, but like HTML5 they will be FIFTEEN YEARS late to the party.

    Flash is not a technology. It is an idea. It is an idea that has been evolving for FIFTEEN YEARS. Hackers have put a dent in Flash. Steve Jobs has put another. But as an idea it shines very brightly.

    Why is HTML5 compared to Flash?

    Because HTML5 expresses the same ideas that Flash brought to the web (and continues to bring) : that the web needn’t be a set of hyperlinked but otherwise dull documents.

    • Addendum.

      One of the greatest tragedies that occurred with respect to Flash, and the direction it was going, is the contribution that Microsoft brought to the idea. At the heart of Flash was introduced an implementation of an ECMAScript standard that was on the verge of being ratified when Microsoft vetoed the standard. Why did it veto the standard? The reason is that Flash had already implemented the standard (under the moniker Actionscript3). If the standard went ahead Microsoft would be a few years behind an implementation and could lose ground to Flash. And so it vetoed a beautiful standard.

      But note what is being said here. Flash was participating in the standards game – a standard that browers could have gone ahead and implemented, and would have implemented, had Microsoft not vetoed the standard.

      And so we had to wait longer. Not for something necessarily any better – but simply something that the powers that be could agree on. That’s all standards are about – not about something better – but something politically agreeable.

    • “Tools for authoring HTML5 with the same artistic and technical intelligence as Flash will no doubt emerge, but like HTML5 they will be FIFTEEN YEARS late to the party.”

      The party analogy is an interesting one, but you forgot a few of the details:

      Flash came to the party, but it often behaved badly. It consumed too much of the booze and chips. It behaved in an obnoxious manner: shouting too loud. It would often force the party to end hours earlier than desired. Sometimes, it would do something bad and crash the whole party immediately. Other times, it would open a back door or a window for really bad people to really create havoc at the house.

      Over time, people got tired of the behavior of Flash at their browser parties. They would put guards at the door to limit which of the Flash-folk were even allowed to enter the party. With only the invited Flash-folk around, the parties immediately improved. Less resources were consumed, less crashes, and fewer bad people were able to sneak in the back door. People told their friends about the Flash-guards; the idea spread like wildfire.

      In 2007, one adult made a new rule: no Flash-folk would be allowed to any of the browser-parties in the new homes he was building. Many thought he was crazy: everybody wanted a few Flash-folk in the party; his new homes would never be successful with rules like that. They were wrong. His homes became massively popular, and he was the most profitable home-builder in the land. This adult has created entirely new kinds of homes, and all of them are massively successful.

      Nevertheless, some still liked a few Flash-folk at parties at those new homes. The adult provided them a way to attend an adjunct party (but not the main browser-party). For each Flash-folk the people wanted at the party, the adult created a separate shed in the back yard. He made sure the sheds had very strong walls such that the Flash-folk could no longer leave any back doors open.

      In hindsight, the main problem with the Flash-folk was their arrogance. They presumed that once being invited to the main party that they would always be invited to the main party. That is not the case. More and more people are putting guards in place; there’s a very short list of Flash-folk they will allow at their parties. And they will never be part of the main party in those new homes. They have strutted and fettered their hour on the stage; some are bitter that their party-time in the spotlight has passed.

      “FIFTEEN YEARS later some of the same capabilities are being built into browsers under the name of HTML5.”

      Yesterday’s legacy paves the way to tomorrow’s future. Those with existing Flash code can use Google’s Swiffy to convert to HTML5. Adobe is also providing tools to convert from Flash to HTML5. They acknowledge in their own blog ( http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html ) that parties with Flash-folk will be banned in an increasing number of parties. From that blog entry:

      “So, the opportunity: CUT THE COST OF TARGETING MULTIPLE RUNTIMES & we’ll deliver real wins: more richness for clients, and a competitive advantage for customers.”

      Adobe sees the handwriting on the wall. Flash has ceased to be the way to deliver content universally; nobody wants to maintain parallel delivery mechanisms for different target environments. Advertisers understand the uselessness of delivering their ads in Flash and having the delivery of those ads get muzzled by the Flash-blockers. Flash has been dealt out of the game.

      Back to Carl’s commentary:

      “But where are the tools to leverage that capability from an art and design perspective? Flash was not only a browser plugin providing capabilities that the browser didn’t, but a set of tools to leverage that additional capability – to author work that made use of such additional capability.”

      What won’t the HTML5 conversion tools Swiffy and Wallaby do that artists and designers need to do with their legacy Flash code? Won’t those tools give the artists and designers the leverage they need?

  • Phil said : “Flash came to the party, but it often behaved badly. It consumed too much of the booze and chips. It behaved in an obnoxious manner: shouting too loud. It would often force the party to end hours earlier than desired. Sometimes, it would do something bad and crash the whole party immediately. Other times, it would open a back door or a window for really bad people to really create havoc at the house.

    Over time, people got tired of the behavior of Flash at their browser parties. They would put guards at the door to limit which of the Flash-folk were even allowed to enter the party. With only the invited Flash-folk around, the parties immediately improved. Less resources were consumed, less crashes, and fewer bad people were able to sneak in the back door. People told their friends about the Flash-guards; the idea spread like wildfire.

    In 2007, one adult made a new rule: no Flash-folk would be allowed to any of the browser-parties in the new homes he was building. Many thought he was crazy: everybody wanted a few Flash-folk in the party; his new homes would never be successful with rules like that. They were wrong. His homes became massively popular, and he was the most profitable home-builder in the land. This adult has created entirely new kinds of homes, and all of them are massively successful.

    Nevertheless, some still liked a few Flash-folk at parties at those new homes. The adult provided them a way to attend an adjunct party (but not the main browser-party). For each Flash-folk the people wanted at the party, the adult created a separate shed in the back yard. He made sure the sheds had very strong walls such that the Flash-folk could no longer leave any back doors open.

    In hindsight, the main problem with the Flash-folk was their arrogance. They presumed that once being invited to the main party that they would always be invited to the main party. That is not the case. More and more people are putting guards in place; there’s a very short list of Flash-folk they will allow at their parties. And they will never be part of the main party in those new homes. They have strutted and fettered their hour on the stage; some are bitter that their party-time in the spotlight has passed.”

    Wow ! No fact here ! No facts at all ! Only YOUR mood, wich is followed by some apple fans. Flash always behaved righ on my PC. Never failed. NEVER. And it makes my parties really really cool. No bad dude entered by the backdoor. And the party goes on : it will soon invite hardware accelerated 3D ! This party is going to be awesome. Lot of fun here, you should come in !

    “Flash has been dealt out of the game.”

    The flash player will bring harware accelerated 3D on mobiles, AIR is a really good platform for web applications, and can now be on ios and androids, without further coding. I bet Flash and Flash builder will soon have a functionnal export to HTML5 tool in theyr future versions.

    Flash is going always one step further. Creating new parties…

    • “Wow ! No fact here ! No facts at all ! Only YOUR mood, wich is followed by some apple fans.”

      Flash’s history of excessive consumption of resources (memory, CPU) is a fact.

      Flash’s history of shortening battery life in laptops is a fact.

      Flash’s long history of crashing browsers is a fact.

      The promiscuity of the Flash environment is a fact. zero-day attacks have been numerous over the past two years. Those malware attacks are frequently mentioned on computer security podcasts like “Security Now”. If you wish to get yourself educated on the numerous security failures of Flash, you could start by doing a google search:

      site:grc.com zero day adobe

      The existence of click-to-flash browser plugins is a fact. Each popular browser has at least one plugin that will muzzle the download and execution of Flash code.
      They are indeed quite popular; the browsing experience is improved tremendously when click-to-flash plugins are installed.

      Apple never allowed Flash on its iOS machines (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad), which were first released in 2007. Many were highly critical of Jobs for this decision; they thought the iPhone would never succeed and that this decision would heart Apple. They were wrong, and that’s a fact.

      Apple is indeed the most profitable computer maker in the land. In Q4 of 2009, Apple broke into the top 10 of market capitalization for all publicly traded corporations. They are now #3 in market cap for all publicly-traded corporations in the world. Fact, fact, and fact.

      In 2010, Apple changed their rules for the App Store to allow cross-compiled apps. That is a fact.

      Frederic, saying “No fact here” is a grossly irresponsible statement. There are plenty of facts in my little story.

      “Flash always behaved righ on my PC. Never failed. NEVER.”

      You need to educate yourself on the massive resource and reliability problems that Flash has had on the Mac and other platforms. Then you need to ask yourself: if Adobe has done so damn poorly supporting Flash over the years, why in heaven’s name should Apple bind the performance of their iPhone browser to Adobe Flash? It would have been a stupid decision for Apple to do that. Kicking flash out of the iOS browser party was the right decision.

      “And it makes my parties really really cool. No bad dude entered by the backdoor.”

      Are you ignorant of the facts of the large number of zero-day Flash attacks in the last 2 years? Again, you need to go educate yourself. I gave you instructions above how to do that.

      Until earlier this year, Adobe was advocating a plan of quarterly updates to its software. They finally got a dose of reality: deferring software updates to happen only once a quarter would be suicidal for its users. They have abandoned the quarterly schedule and are now releasing fixes as they address the zero-day bugs. That’s another fact that seems to have escaped you.

      “And the party goes on : it will soon invite hardware accelerated 3D ! This party is going to be awesome.”

      If you hold the parties in the browser, an ever-increasing percentage of computer users will never ever see your code. That’s a fact.

      “Lot of fun here, you should come in !”

      You’re the person who just claimed “No facts at all!” when my message was full of facts. You still haven’t explained how you confused politifact’s #77 ranking with a #1 ranking.

      You haven’t earned a lot of trust, Frederic. You don’t seem to know the difference between a feeling and a fact. But if you want to cross-compile your apps and put them up in the iOS store, I might consider running it. That’s the way for your app to join OUR party.

  • Ok, let stop the massacre. You dont say anything new.
    Your arguments are again the same, and don’t respond directly to my post.

    You just repeat your lesson.

    So I Resume my point :
    – I think Adobe’s tools to publish AS3to Ios and Android are great. They works, and some apps published this ways have already been in the top charts in Appstore sales. Other will be.
    – I think AS3 apps will grow in the apple world and the android world and a great nuber of compagnies will use them, saving money and time, to produce great apps, cause they are smart.
    – Beside, I think Flash player Molehill will bring 3D to laptops and Android mobiles, and AIR apps will be here too for a long time.
    – Adobe will soon release Edge, the new HTML5 editor, which I think it will take his place in the adobe workflow with Flash.
    – I think ObjC is a mess. AS3 is better in production context.
    – I think Apple doesn’t care about their user. Apple care about money. And apple will burn the web as it is now, if Apple can earn money doing this. And I think this is not a good future when my phone tell me want i can and cannot watch with.

    I’m sure you will repeat again your arguments, Flash is so bad, blah,blah, trying to tell me am wrong.
    But I just dont think so.
    This conversation is now sterile. This is my last post.

    • Yes – Phil is the master troll here. He’s also so easily offended. So here’s some more offence for him to stew over and defend:

      Phil argues: “I’ve never explicitly singled out Flash as having a difficult road to success in the iOS app store”

      And yet here are specific words of his doing just that:

      PHIL: A Flash app must be awfully good to be viewed as superior by the marketplace in the iOS App Store.

      So I ask: “Why does Phil single out flash as something to do (or not) with the road to success (when the same applies to native apps)”

      To which Phil says: “Correct.”

      So I say: “He both agrees and disagrees”.

      Phil crys: “No. I never ever said that”

      Denial.

      I ask the question: “What makes an app superior? If it’s the framework (ObjectiveC) then ALL ObjectiveC apps would be superior.”

      Phil interjects, thinking himself very clever: “That’s a rather sophomoric logical fallacy.”

      I totally agree. Which is why I said it

      He asks: “Do you now see the absurdity of your conjecture?”

      It’s precisely the absurdity of the conjecture that is the point being made.

      Phil goes on to say: “The fact that poor apps can be written in a language says nothing about the ability to write superior apps in that language.”

      Phil, at last, begins to see the light.

      • “Phil argues: ‘I’ve never explicitly singled out Flash as having a difficult road to success in the iOS app store’
        PHIL: A Flash app must be awfully good to be viewed as superior by the marketplace in the iOS App Store.”

        I’ll clarify, Carl: Flash will have exactly the same difficulty that any sort of one-size-fits-all development environment will have.

        If there were Java libraries available for iOS, then Java apps would have *exactly* the same difficulties that a Flash-based cross-development environment would have.

        “So I ask: ‘Why does Phil single out flash as something to do (or not) with the road to success (when the same applies to native apps)’
        To which Phil says: ‘Correct.’ ”

        Anyone who scans the text in this discussion will see that is incorrect. From my message at July 11, 2011 at 1:29 am:

        “But to single out Flash for trashing in the app domain is completely idiotic. That’s what I’m talking about.”
        IIRC, Apple banned *all* cross-compilers; they did not single out Flash.

        Carl: when you can’t even quote what someone says correctly, any sort of rational discussion becomes problematic.

        “I ask the question: ‘What makes an app superior? If it’s the framework (ObjectiveC) then ALL ObjectiveC apps would be superior.’
        Phil interjects, thinking himself very clever: ‘That’s a rather sophomoric logical fallacy.’
        I totally agree. Which is why I said it”

        You deliberately inject sophomoric claims into the discussion. That is a strange behavior.

        “Phil goes on to say: ‘The fact that poor apps can be written in a language says nothing about the ability to write superior apps in that language.’
        Phil, at last, begins to see the light.”

        I now see the light.

        You have no interest in a rational discussion of the very real problems with a one-size-fits-all-environments runtime environment competing with custom apps in a custom environment. You have no interest in discussing a point like this:

        (First posted in a message on July 19, 2011 at 11:39 am)
        Look at an app like Tabata Pro, an iOS app that I consider as the Gold Standard for tababa-style training. Then look at the Flash-ported app SimpleFitnessTimer. See how the UI works in both apps. See what happens when you get a notification in SFT. Look at how clean the settings and display work on Tabata Pro — how you get an even bigger time display if you rotate to landscape mode. See how Tabata Pro will run completely in the background if you want to run the app that way. Is it even possible to craft a Flash app to behave that way on the iOS platform?

        That paragraph captures the quintessence of the problems that generic runtime environments have. But you don’t want to discuss that. Instead, you’re interested in deliberately making sophomoric claims that you know make absolutely no sense.

        Carl: you’re being a troll.

      • Steve Jobs singled out Flash for trashing in his open letter (not a memo). But like Phil he couldn’t sustain such an argument. To implement a gated community one has to trash all third party frameworks. And so that’s what he proceeded to do – not in the same way that he trashed flash – but by a clause in the iOS contract that excluded all but one framework. Steve Jobs favourite framework. But he couldn’t sustain that either. Because there were some third party frameworks with which he did not have a problem – that had been used to great success in the early days of iOS. But if he admitted those frameworks then what could he use to exclude Flash? In the end he realised that Flash wasn’t the problem at all.

        Meanwhile Phil continues on oblivious to such politics – trashing flash. His favourite punching bag.

      • What is the Phil is trying to make about the SimpleFitnessTimer app?

        To me it looks like he is trying to suggest that the reason the app is a dog is because it was made in a 3rd party framework.

        If this is not the point of the anecdote then what is?

      • “Steve Jobs singled out Flash for trashing in his open letter (not a memo).”

        Actually, Jobs was responding to the repeated attacks by Adobe against Apple. I discussed those in detail in my message on July 11, 2011 at 6:58 am. You didn’t seem to be willing to discuss any of the points I noted in that message.

        The most insulting of these was that Flash is somehow required for “the full web” because of Flash videos. As Jobs notes in his memo, all major video sources have provided non-Flash solutions for a long time. For any legacy websites that have yet to update, the Skyfire app provides a nice bridge.

        “But like Phil he couldn’t sustain such an argument.”

        The one memo was plenty. Jobs’s argument is sustained every single time we get statistics on Apple’s success. See today’s Q3 financial reports for the latest “message” to Adobe:

        $28.5B in gross sales and $7.3B in profit.
        A sky-high 41.7% gross margin.
        Almost 4M Macs, over 20M iPhones, and over 9M iPads shipped.
        Those are record quarterly revenue, profit, iPad, and iPhone quarterly numbers.
        “We sold every iPad we could make.”
        $76B cash on hand.

        Carl: those record numbers reflect the delight that customers have for Apple products. They are a graphical demonstration that Adobe’s claims were completely out of line.

        “To implement a gated community one has to trash all third party frameworks.”

        That would be one spin. Another spin is that Apple ha a fanatical focus on customer delight.

        What you need to explain: if there are Flash apps that would be viewed as superior to the existing iOS apps, what exactly are the Flash developers waiting for?

        I’ll ask it a different way: how long will we have to wait before we see those “superior” Flash apps?

        This is not trashing Flash; this is reconciling your opinions of Flash against reality.

        ” In the end he realised that Flash wasn’t the problem at all.”

        Fine. What is stopping the Flash developers from releasing their apps to iOS — RIGHT NOW?

        “Meanwhile Phil continues on oblivious to such politics”

        Adobe’s tool is released. Apple is waiting.

        Where exactly are those “superior” Flash apps????

        How long do we have to wait until we see those “superior” Flash apps displacing native iOS apps????

        Carl: that isn’t trashing Flash. It is reconciling your belief system against reality. So far, reality is winning. ;-(

        $28.5B in revenue. Amazing!

      • “What is the Phil is trying to make about the SimpleFitnessTimer app?”

        Get a copy of SimpleFitnessTimer and Tabata Pro. We can then have an intelligent conversation on this topic.

        Thanks, Carl.

      • Phil claims that I’m “interested in deliberately making sophomoric claims that (I) know make absolutely no sense.”

        Phil would see that after I made the absurd proposition I went on to say:

        “Clearly that is not the case”.

        Perhaps I should have said “Clearly that is an absurd proposition”.

        I wasn’t making any claim at all. I was postulating an absurdity that I assumed would be obvious. Phil seems to recognise the absurdity but thinks of it as some claim I’m making. But the absurdity is a conclusion that Phil appears to be making. And it is Phils apparent claim that I’m questioning.

        What makes an app superior? Or inferior for that matter?

        My argument is that is has nothing to do with the framework. And that saying otherwise (as Phil seems to suggest) is the very absurdity I was questioning.

      • Regarding when good Flash apps will appear in the iOS store I don’t know. Personally I’m not that interested in flash apps. But if someone did a good one I wouldn’t be trashing it because it was made in Flash. I’d be going “yeah – good on ya – the trolls said it couldn’t be done and you did it”

        But Phil’s politics now include trashing Flash because there isn’t yet any good flash apps he has found in the iOS store.

        My issue is with absurd assumption that could be a functional relationship between how good an app might be, the framework in which it is authored and the statistics of framework usage for apps. These are all independant facts. There is no functional relationship between these facts. No cause and effect.

        There is just Phils belief that there is. Who is living in la-la land?

      • “I wasn’t making any claim at all. I was postulating an absurdity that I assumed would be obvious.”

        No purpose is served by making absurd rhetorical statements in the discussion. They’re just trolling, and you’re doing yet more trolling in this posting.

        [SNIP]

        “What makes an app superior? Or inferior for that matter?”

        Get copies of Tabata Pro and SimpleFitnessTimer. We can then have an intelligent conversation on this topic.

        “My argument is that is has nothing to do with the framework.”

        That’s a conjecture. In order for it to be an argument, you would need to add facts and reasoning to the conjecture.

        Get those two apps, Carl. We can then have a real discussion about your conjecture.

      • “But Phil’s politics now include trashing Flash because there isn’t yet any good flash apps he has found in the iOS store.”

        Wondering how long it will take for those “superior” apps to appear in the App Store is not political. It is a legitimate question.

        How long should it take for Flash developers to put their apps up? Time is money. It should be trivial for Flash developers to cross-compile their apps, right?

        Flash has existed for far longer than the entire iOS ecosystem. Those apps should be ready to go, right?

        “My issue is with absurd assumption that could be a functional relationship between how good an app might be, the framework in which it is authored and the statistics of framework usage for apps. These are all independant facts. There is no functional relationship between these facts. No cause and effect.”

        Why do you presume that the Flash environment will be able to access all features of the iOS environment?

        iOS 5 is going to be available this fall. What features of the new APIs will Flash support? Will Flash support sync and backup of data to the cloud? How will it do that?

        Saying there is no cause and effect between your choice of environments is about the silliest thing I’ve heard in this discussion. If Adobe doesn’t provide a way to do cloud sync and backup, there’s no way an app developer can cause that to happen.

        “There is just Phils belief that there is. Who is living in la-la land?”

        If I use native apps with iOS 5 updates, I’ll be living in the cloud.

        If I use Flash, I don’t see how data can possibly be living in the cloud.

        Someone in this discussion is living in la-la land, Carl.

  • Earnhardt has made some very good points. In particular is the issue of security. Fortunately, Adobe (albeit belatedly) did get around to addressing this important issue. So while Earnhardt likes to celebrate Flash’s previous misfortunes, things have moved on.

    Of course the web remains a wild place. Security will always be an ongoing issue. That’s the price of living in the wild.

    The gated community idea advocated by Earnhardt and others doesn’t solve the problem of security outside the community. It takes the easy path – simply solve the problem for those on the inside. Which is, of course, the idea. The cheapest solution.

    One of the downsides – for those of us having a party on the outside – is the occasional missile launched from those inside the gated community. The missiles are not aimed anywhere in particular because by default, everything on the outside is a potential threat. That’s the basis upon which a gated community is defined. Treat everything as a threat until decided otherwise.

    Flash was not a threat. It was a victim. That is why Flash (and others) have been allowed into the gated community. They are not the threat. They pose no threat. They too would like to enjoy some security.

    But being bombed by the gated community for the sin of trying to survive on the outside. That’s just unjust.

    • “Earnhardt has made some very good points. In particular is the issue of security. Fortunately, Adobe (albeit belatedly) did get around to addressing this important issue. So while Earnhardt likes to celebrate Flash’s previous misfortunes, things have moved on.”

      I don’t know exactly what you mean by the phrase “previous misfortunes”. Episode #296 of Security Now, broadcast on April 14, 2011, notes yet another zero-day vulnerability in Adobe Flash.

      Apple made the decision in 2007 to not put Flash on their iOS browsers. As the numbers since the iPhone reveal, that decision has worked out just fine. It’s difficult to imagine how Apple could have had better numbers over the past four years; they have been clicking on all cylinders.

      “Of course the web remains a wild place. Security will always be an ongoing issue. That’s the price of living in the wild.”

      One of the interesting shifts on the handheld side is that many banks and virtually all brokerage services have their own iOS apps. Paypal has their own app. These financial apps allow iOS users to avoid a large class of browser-related security problems for their financial transactions.

      “The gated community idea advocated by Earnhardt and others doesn’t solve the problem of security outside the community.”

      By keeping Flash off of the iOS browser, Apple has avoided all sorts of problems. The most important problem is that they would have subjugated the security of their browser to Adobe: a company responsible for some of the most promiscuous software in recent history.

      Did you ever think: if Apple’s App Store restrictions became too onerous, many more users would be jailbreaking their iOS devices. Or users would jump to Android devices. The marketplace will keep the world in balance.

      “One of the downsides – for those of us having a party on the outside – is the occasional missile launched from those inside the gated community.”

      Not exactly. In this discussion, I’m wondering: where are those “superior” Flash apps? When will they start taking the App Store by storm?

      Asking from the other perspective: how long will it take the Carls of the world to realize that Flash apps are NOT superior to the native ObjectiveC ones?

      Here’s your problem, Carl: if Flash apps fail to compete against the native ObjectiveC ones, you’ll eventually have to acknowledge that.

      “The missiles are not aimed anywhere in particular because by default, everything on the outside is a potential threat.”

      Nonsense. The real threat to Flash on the App Store is the fiction that Flash apps will somehow be perceived as “superior”.

      “Flash was not a threat. It was a victim.”

      Flash is a victim of its own instability, bloat, resource hogging, and promiscuity. Note: I’m speaking of the Flash of 2007 — when Apple made the decision to exclude Flash from the iOS browser. That ship has sailed, and it ain’t coming back.

      Now, there are over 200,000,000 devices that will never support Flash in the browser. Anyone seeking a universal solution for their website cannot use Flash for that purpose. Adobe has nobody to blame but themselves for that failure.

      “They are not the threat.”

      For the deficiencies that Adobe failed to address, Flash in the browser was a huge threat. In 2007, Apple decided that enough was enough: no Flash in the iOS browser.

      On the other hand, Flash in an app is not a threat. There, the threat to Flash is the marketplace: If those apps are dogs, then nobody will use them. We will now see how those Flash apps compete — or fail to compete — in the App Store.

      Carl: I say we will know in six months if Flash apps can compete. Do you agree?

      • And what about this jem:

        Phil: “how long will it take the Carls of the world to realize that Flash apps are NOT superior to the native ObjectiveC ones?”

        I only said that in jest – and retracted it accordingly. But unlike me Phil seems to think that apps made in a particular languge are somehow endowed with superioity (or not) by virtue of the language in which they are written.

        I don’t.

        And as anyone reading my responses will see – that is what I’ve been arguing all along – unless they have brain deficiency such as Phil has – sorry I retract that jibe about Phils brain.

  • Phil states: “Here’s your problem, Carl: if Flash apps fail to compete against the native ObjectiveC ones, you’ll eventually have to acknowledge that.”

    This is despite the fact that I’ve expressed no interest in building flash apps myself. For native apps I prefer C++. For mobile device apps I prefer C++, Java and C#. For non-mobile (in the wild) browser apps I prefer Actionscript3 (Flash).

    Phil says: “I say we will know in six months if Flash apps can compete. Do you agree?”

    I don’t care. Let me say that one more time. I don’t care. Obviously it matters to Phil that Flash fails. And that’s what needs analysis and criticism here. As Phil says, the market determines these things. So it follows there isn’t any need trash Flash. Perhaps he thinks he needs to talk up the demise of Flash just in case the market fails to do so.

    Phils personal vendetta against Flash is silly. Why not leave it up to market forces. Flash has survived in the wild for a long time. It might fail. It might succeed. But yes – let the marketplace decide.

    But just to reiterate I don’t care whether it succeeds or fails.

    So you won’t see me back here in 6 months time to see the outcome because that’s Phil’s particular theory he wants to test – nothing to do with me.

    • Carl, you failed to address exactly what you meant by the phrase “previous misfortunes”. I just gave you a reference to a zero-day Flash bug that happened about 100 days ago; that sounds like the zero-day problems are definitely not solved.

      You also failed to address my response to your criticism of the “gated community”:

      Did you ever think: if Apple’s App Store restrictions became too onerous, many more users would be jailbreaking their iOS devices. Or users would jump to Android devices. The marketplace will keep the world in balance.

      This is a two-way discussion. Please address those points now.

      • Unlike Phil, with respect to my links, I actually read his links. Indeed I’m still reading the discussion he posted. it’s very interesting and informative. RSA keys were compromised by Flash …

        I wonder when Phil will read the link I posted ages ago.

      • You have still failed to explain what you meant by “previous misfortunes”. Do you actually think that Adobe’s security misfortunes are over?

        You also failed, again, to comment on the dynamics of the App Store. Do you realize that if the rules are too onerous that uses will either jailbreak their phones or jump to Android?

      • And Phil has failed to read and address the link I posted. So why does he think he still has the high moral ground in this debate?

      • Phil said: “Do you actually think that Adobe’s security misfortunes are over?”

        No.

      • As I said: “the web remains a wild place. Security will always be an ongoing issue. “

      • “Phil said: “Do you actually think that Adobe’s security misfortunes are over?”
        No.”

        Then we have no idea what you meant when you said “previous misfortunes”. That language implied you thought that Adobe’s Flash problems were over.

      • Phil claims I failed to address the dynamics of the App store and that “You also failed, again, to comment on the dynamics of the App Store. Do you realize that if the rules are too onerous that uses will either jailbreak their phones or jump to Android?”

        Along the same lines I agreed. I said: “yes – let the marketplace decide.”

        In other words I did address Phils point. I agreed with it. But when Phil just demands a response I say “tough titties Phil Tryhardt” and then immediately regret saying that.

      • Phil says “Then we have no idea what you meant when you said “previous misfortunes”. That language implied you thought that Adobe’s Flash problems were over.”

        The previous misfortunes are just that: previous ones. Adobe was running in a relaxed mode with respect to security for which they publically apologised and addressed by devoting more resources to such.

        That doesn’t mean new misfortunes won’t arrive. Indeed I’m sure they will. I never said the misfortunes were over. Indeed I suggested the opposite.

        Fortunately Adobe is now awake to the problem – tracking the issues and taking remedial action. What else do you recommend?

      • “Along the same lines I agreed. I said: ‘yes – let the marketplace decide.’ ”

        In six months, we should know whether or not Flash apps are actually competitive in the App Store marketplace.

        Given the limited access to the full set of iOS widgets, I’m highly doubtful that Flash will ever displace native iOS apps.

        iOS customers have high expectations for app quality — even for free apps. I really don’t see how generic code can compete against that.

      • “Phil says ‘Then we have no idea what you meant when you said “previous misfortunes”. That language implied you thought that Adobe’s Flash problems were over.’ ”

        “The previous misfortunes are just that: previous ones. Adobe was running in a relaxed mode with respect to security for which they publically apologised and addressed by devoting more resources to such.”

        They are NOT previous: Adobe is still getting zero-day Flash Player bugs.

        “That doesn’t mean new misfortunes won’t arrive. Indeed I’m sure they will. I never said the misfortunes were over. Indeed I suggested the opposite.”

        Apple’s iOS strategy is perfect: if someone wants to endure Adobe’s problems, they can do it behind the individual apps’ firewalls.

        “Fortunately Adobe is now awake to the problem – tracking the issues and taking remedial action. What else do you recommend?”

        Adobe just demonstrated that they were spectacularly unprepared for the release of OSX Lion. First, see their announcement in

        http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/21/adobe-suggests-disabled-hardware-acceleration-for-flash-player-in-os-x-lion/

        Where they admit they’re not ready for Lion and claim that hardware acceleration has been disabled [by Apple] for Flash. Then look at their retraction about 12 hours later in

        http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/22/adobe-retracts-claim-suggesting-lion-may-lack-support-for-flash-hardware-acceleration/

        Adobe’s first posting contained wrong information. Further, they admit that they are completely unprepared for the Lion release. Despite having access to pre-release versions of Lion for months, they have failed to produce a timely release of their software. They have also failed to release Flash for the Mac App Store. These are not the actions that a $15B company would publicly make.

  • From a small software house’s perspective it can be incredibly costly re-engineering the “wheel” each time you have to develop across platforms. So its actually bad news for the clients as costs will rise, despite what they might think from an “isn’t my iOS device cool” perspective – its about money in the end.

    Once of Flash’s biggest strengths was the “author once” deliver to many capabilities – its moved forward with a lot of advances, HD video streaming, 3D capabilities and very easy workflow – lets not lose sight of that.

    Remember for many agencies and small web-businesses the duplicated cost and effort to rebuild these “wheels” for our clients to suit different needlessly stubborn platforms could be better spent on moving technology and our own software forwards in a unified platform – Adobe has done that over the years, Flash is not what it was 5 or even 10 years ago.

    This “dilution” of progress and effort is what happened to computer software in the early days before a single dominant platform, and it should be remembered here 20 odd years later how much things advanced when the old platform wars ended.

    Its Apple who are the bad boys here. Remember that, they’ve upset their own ‘Applecart’ ;) by putting restrictions in.

    The web is about open standards and choice.

    • “From a small software house’s perspective it can be incredibly costly re-engineering the “wheel” each time you have to develop across platforms. [...] Remember for many agencies and small web-businesses the duplicated cost and effort to rebuild these “wheels” for our clients to suit different needlessly stubborn platforms could be better spent on moving technology and our own software forwards in a unified platform – Adobe has done that over the years, Flash is not what it was 5 or even 10 years ago.”

      Flash is a non-starter for iOS web browsing. In their financial results call this week, Apple announced that there are now over 222M iOS devices.

      Despite the graphic at the top of this article, the only way to get a cross-platform solution today is to use HTML5. Flash developers can take their legacy code and port it to HTML5 with tools like Google’s Swiffy or Adobe’s Wallaby. For more intricate Flash code, Flash developers will have to abandon the web and deliver cross-compiled apps for each platform.

      “Its Apple who are the bad boys here.”

      Apple was protecting the safe and secure operation of their iOS browser. Allowing Adobe Flash on the browser in 2007 would have been the wrong choice — the large number of zero-day Flash malware attacks in the last 4 years bears that out.

      Adobe fails to deliver quality software on time, and those failures continue today. Look at the article http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/22/adobe-retracts-claim-suggesting-lion-may-lack-support-for-flash-hardware-acceleration/ . Not only did Adobe wrongly accuse Apple of disabling hardware acceleration in Lion, but Adobe failed to deliver a working version of Flash for this platform.

      Like other developers, Adobe has had access to pre-release versions of Lion for months. Unlike other developers, Adobe had no priority to update and release Flash in a timely manner for this platform. It makes perfect sense for Apple to minimize their dependencies on Adobe software for their computers.

      “Remember that, they’ve upset their own ‘Applecart’ ;) by putting restrictions in.”

      See above. The iOS browser restrictions made perfect sense. Any sort of iOS Application restrictions were removed months ago. Through the App Store, the marketplace will determine if Flash apps are competitive on those 222M+ iOS devices.

      “The web is about open standards and choice.”

      As Jobs noted in his 2010 memo “Thoughts on Flash”, Adobe Flash is 100% proprietary. It is not an open standard; the behavior of Flash is dictated by a single company. Runtime environments are only available from Adobe.

      If you were really concerned about open standards and choice on the web, you would not be advocating Flash.

    • Phil said “Runtime environments are only available from Adobe.” But so what? Apple device are only available from Apple.

      Phil said “Flash is a non-starter for iOS web browsing”. Another way of putting that is to say that Steve Jobs decided, (for reasons that Phil will no doubt ellaborate to the end of time), that Steve’s little web browser would not support Flash. Fair enough. Steve is free to implement his little web browser however he likes.

      But for some reason Phil likes to consume websites with rogue flash components.

      From a technical perspective Flash is not responsible for rogue web components. It is rogue developers who are responsible for that. Or to put it another way why not hold relaxed website administrators responsible? Or the choices an end user makes? That has about as much logic as holding flash responsible.

      That all said, Flash has taken on the responsibility for security because in the end who else will?

      Phil said “Adobe fails to deliver quality software on time”. But what does he give as evidence. The link he provides doesn’t suggest there was any issue with delivery time. Nor with quality. The issue was with a tech note Adobe released for which they issued the following correction:

      “The final release of Mac OS X Lion (10.7) provides the same support for Flash hardware video acceleration as Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6). The previous “Known Issue” described in a tech note suggesting that video hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion was incorrect and based on tests with a pre-release version of Mac OS X Lion that related to only one particular Mac GPU configuration.”

      • “Phil said, ‘Runtime environments are only available from Adobe.’ But so what? Apple device are only available from Apple.”

        The difference: Adobe claims that Flash is somehow “open” while Apple acknowledges that their operating systems are actually proprietary. Carl: go re-read Jobs’s 2010 “Thoughts on Flash” memo.

        “Phil said “Flash is a non-starter for iOS web browsing”. Another way of putting that is to say that Steve Jobs decided, (for reasons that Phil will no doubt ellaborate to the end of time), that Steve’s little web browser would not support Flash.”

        The reasons were covered in my message here on July 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm. Interestingly, that message already covered your “open” concern that you repeated above.

        “Fair enough. Steve is free to implement his little web browser however he likes.”

        It was a business decision by Apple — not a personal decision by any employee. AFAICT, it was the right business decision: Apple was unwilling to tie the success of the iPhone browser to a third-party company that had terrible bloat, quality, and security issues with its product.

        Apple has done just fine without Flash. They have made over 222M iOS devices. They have sold as many iPads as they could manufacture.

        “But for some reason Phil likes to consume websites with rogue flash components.”

        I do not. The Flash engine is way too promiscuous; I rarely run any Flash code except from sites that I already know and trust.

        “From a technical perspective Flash is not responsible for rogue web components. It is rogue developers who are responsible for that. Or to put it another way why not hold relaxed website administrators responsible?”

        You have again missed the point: Flash is a non-starter because of the conditions in place in 2007. Whether or not Adobe addresses the promiscuity problems in their software, Apple will never put Flash on its iOS browser. That ship has long sailed. Further, Apple has demonstrated that their iOS products are well-accepted in the marketplace without Flash in the browser.

        Adobe had its chance for Flash to be part of iOS, and it blew it. Now, 222M devices later, any hope of having Flash be universally available in browsers is hopelessly shattered. If little websites are interested in a universal solution, they are far better off using HTML5.

        “Phil said ‘Adobe fails to deliver quality software on time’. But what does he give as evidence. The link he provides doesn’t suggest there was any issue with delivery time.”

        Of course I provided evidence: Adobe failed to deliver updates for Lion in time for Apple’s general release of the Lion OS.

        All other third-party software I use managed to deliver Lion updates. Adobe was the sole vendor who failed to deliver a Lion update in a timely fashion. We have no idea when Adobe will deliver an updated version of Flash for Lion.

    • I’m a software developer. I do it for both commercial reasons but also for loftier artistic and technical reasons. I don’t write rogue software. I’ve been writing software since 1982. I started on a PET CBM, followed by a Commodore 64 (it had more something like 10 more pixels real estate than the Apple competitior). I moved on to Amiga computers – that were much better than Apple machines for multimedia work. With the demise of Amiga, I had a choice between PC and Apple. They were both as good as each other at that time. But Apple was aiming their machines at consumers. Fair enough. But I was a software producer – not a consumer – and finding technical information on how to program an Apple was next to impossible. PCs, on the other hand, provided a wealth of technical information on how they could be programmed. So I went down the PC road. All my artist and designer friends went for Macs. Why? Because, for them, programming a machine was beyond them (and not what they imagined a computer was). They wanted ready made machines. And Apple, in conjunction with their partners (and in particular Adobe) provided that.

      And that’s fair enough. I’m also a consumer. Although even as a consumer I couldn’t stand the design of Apples. Even today Apple design makes my insides turn. But that’s just me.

      In any case, when I work in a creative capacity (as a producer rather than a consumer) I’m operating in a completely different environment from that which Phil the Apple fanboy consumer operates.

      As a producer the questions are completely different. For example, when I’m building something in Flash (the authoring tool) I don’t experience any security problems at all. Because there isn’t any. The clients for whom I build Flash don’t experience any security issues, because there isn’t any. And the end user who visits my work doesn’t experience any security issues because there isn’t any.

      • “As a producer the questions are completely different. For example, when I’m building something in Flash (the authoring tool) I don’t experience any security problems at all. Because there isn’t any. The clients for whom I build Flash don’t experience any security issues, because there isn’t any. And the end user who visits my work doesn’t experience any security issues because there isn’t any.”

        It is theoretically possible for end users to use something like Flash with no vulnerability. As a practical matter, if someone wants to hack that user community, they should be able to do it. Are you familiar with the concept of Spear Phishing? Google on Spear Phishing and Flash to see companies that have been a victim of such attacks.

        I’m curious: what do you do at your customer site if they want to run your Flash code on an iPad or iPhone?

    • Phil claims: “[Flash] is not an open standard; the behavior of Flash is dictated by a single company.”

      As mentioned earlier the behaviour of Apple devices is also dictated by a single company. Indeed most machines are typically proprietary. So it’s complete hypocrisy for an Apple fanboy to use this as a criticism against Flash.

      But in every other way possible Flash is an open standard. Indeed I can’t see how more open it could be.

      • “Phil claims: ‘[Flash] is not an open standard; the behavior of Flash is dictated by a single company.’
        As mentioned earlier the behaviour of Apple devices is also dictated by a single company. Indeed most machines are typically proprietary.”

        Here’s the difference: Apple is clear that their OS software is proprietary. On the other hand: Adobe claims that Flash is somehow “open”. This was spelled out in Job’s “Thoughts on Flash” memo last year. Did you read it?

        “But in every other way possible Flash is an open standard. Indeed I can’t see how more open it could be.”

        Yet Flash is proprietary. Deal with it.

        Adobe has dealt with it: they provide Wallady to generate HTML5 for Flash code. Did you see the Adobe blog entry on that product: Adobe acknowledges that Flash can no longer provide a universal solution for websites.

      • Phil doesn’t understand the difference between Flash the platform and Flash as a development environment.

        As a development environment Flash is an open standard. Anyone can get the specs and write their own development environment. Indeed I use a code IDE called Flash Develop which is built entirely on open standards.

        When we talk about HTML5 being an open standard do we include the web browsers that actually do the rendering of HTML5 in that?

        No. By HTML5 we mean just the language.

        In exactly the same way Flash – the language – is an open standard.

        Steve Jobs is just plain wrong.

      • “In exactly the same way Flash – the language – is an open standard.”

        But the runtime is NOT open — it is only available from one company.

        “Steve Jobs is just plain wrong.”

        You certainly seem to feel that way. If you think that everything Steve wrote in his “Thoughts on Flash” memo was just plain wrong, I sugest drafting a detailed note in response. Dazzle us with your brilliance.

        In hindsight, Apple was completely right to exclude Flash from the iOS browser. There were huge downsides that were avoided, and it’s difficult to imagine the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and the App Store being more successful than they have been.

        The downside for Adobe is that Flash is now a legacy platform for the web. Every year, an ever-decreasing percentage of browsers will be able to run Flash code.

      • Once more Phil just ignores the actual argument and defers to Steve Knobs for guidance.

        Flash – as a language – is an open standard. It was standardised via the ECMAScript standards committee. However Microsoft vetoed ratification. It is, however, a standard and open to anyone to download and use. Adobe provide a host of additional tools, written in Java and other standard languages for compiling Actionscript to bytecode for rendering in the virtual machine. The complete source code for the Actionscript compiler is available for anyone to download and compile.

        I’ve adapted the Actionscript compiler myself, to run Actionscript code in my own virtual machines (runtimes).

        Phil doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He just reads Steve Knobs words as if they they were holy writ.

      • “Once more Phil just ignores the actual argument and defers to Steve Knobs for guidance.”

        I have no real interest in the academic nuances of what parts are open and which are not. What I care about: is the end-to-end solution open or proprietary. Flash is proprietary. That was Jobs’s point in the memo, and he was correct.

        “I’ve adapted the Actionscript compiler myself, to run Actionscript code in my own virtual machines (runtimes).
        Phil doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He just reads Steve Knobs words as if they they were holy writ.”

        Where exactly can one go to download a non-Adobe runtime for Flash?

    • Phil says: “Despite the graphic at the top of this article, the only way to get a cross-platform solution today is to use HTML5.”

      In the future there will be great tools for authoring HTML5. And there isn’t any reason why Flash (Actionscript3) needn’t be a part of that. I mean “Flash” is just a brand for various workflows, tools, concepts, languages, and runtimes. You could rebuild any or all of these from scratch and still call it Flash.

      Phil say: “Flash developers can take their legacy code and port it to HTML5 with tools like Google’s Swiffy or Adobe’s Wallaby.”

      Google’s swiffy and Adobe’s Wallaby are just temporary ad hoc solutions for non-code driven flash.

      Phil says: “For more intricate Flash code, Flash developers will have to abandon the web and deliver cross-compiled apps for each platform.”

      If we have no problem with the idea of cross-compiled apps then there is no logic behind the claim that Flash (ie. Actionscript) can’t be used as the source code for such. In any case app development raises a completely different set of questions from those raised in the debate between HTML and Flash.

      But as usual Phil conflates the two.

      • “In the future there will be great tools for authoring HTML5. And there isn’t any reason why Flash (Actionscript3) needn’t be a part of that. I mean “Flash” is just a brand for various workflows, tools, concepts, languages, and runtimes. You could rebuild any or all of these from scratch and still call it Flash.”

        If developers wish to maintain their source code in Flash and cross-compile to HTML5, that’s just fine.

        “Phil say: “Flash developers can take their legacy code and port it to HTML5 with tools like Google’s Swiffy or Adobe’s Wallaby.”
        Google’s swiffy and Adobe’s Wallaby are just temporary ad hoc solutions for non-code driven flash.”

        That covers a lot of the current Flash usage.

        If websites created a lot of Flash code for their website, they are out of luck. They will have to provide dual solutions or simply abandon their Flash code. This is no surprise to such sites: their code has never run on iOS devices.

        “In any case app development raises a completely different set of questions from those raised in the debate between HTML and Flash.”

        There is no debate between HTML and Flash. In 2007, HTML won. Flash lost.

      • Phil said: “There is no debate between HTML and Flash. In 2007, HTML won. Flash lost.”

        You wish.

      • “Phil said: ‘There is no debate between HTML and Flash. In 2007, HTML won. Flash lost.’
        You wish.”

        Flash is not universal. No amount of wishing on your part will have Flash be available on iOS browsers. If you have users who want to run your Flash code on iOS devices, you’ll have to cross-compile for that environment. Deal with it.

        With Apple’s decision in 2007 to ban Flash from the iOS devices, Adobe lost.

      • Phil says: “Flash is not universal. No amount of wishing on your part will have Flash be available on iOS browsers. If you have users who want to run your Flash code on iOS devices, you’ll have to cross-compile for that environment. Deal with it.”

        Once again Phil thinks I’m saying something I’m not. Where did I say Flash was universal. I said it was an open standard. And it is.

        Where did I say Flash will be available for iOS browsers? Nowhere.

        Where did I wish that Flash would be available for iOS browsers? Nowhere.

        He says: “Deal with it”.

        Ok. How about this: Phil Tryhard loves Steve Knobs. Nair nair na nair nair.

      • “Once again Phil thinks I’m saying something I’m not. Where did I say Flash was universal. I said it was an open standard. And it is.”

        There is only one vendor that one can get Flash runtime from. There are no viable open-source Flash runtime alternatives.

        You have a quaint definition of open. As a practical matter, Flash is NOT open.

        “Where did I say Flash will be available for iOS browsers? Nowhere.”

        If you are providing solutions for clients, you had better warn them that your solution will not run on their iOS browsers.

        “He says: ‘Deal with it’.”

        Correct. I told you that Flash has lost and you said “You wish.” Flash has lost the browser wars. Anyone wishing to use code to target all browsers can NOT use flash.

        As a consultant, you do need to deal with that.

        “Ok. How about this: Phil Tryhard loves Steve Knobs. Nair nair na nair nair.”

        I would say that your rational arguments have failed and you’ve now descended to name-calling. Please act like an adult, Carl. Thanks!

      • Phil seems to think that repeating the fact that “the flash runtime is not open” somehow acts as a criticism of what I’m saying.

        Ha ha.

        Yes, the flash runtime is not open. I’ve said so myself – a number of times.

        But that is not what is meant by “Flash” as open standard. The Flash language (Actionscript) is an open standard. In exactly the same way that the HTML5 language is an open standard.

        But web browsers, just like the Flash runtime, are not required to be open standard. HTML5 can still be called an open standard even if the browser isn’t.

        The same goes for Flash the language. The language is an open standard and can still be called an open standard even if the Flash runtime is not.

        The runtime does what a browser does. It simply renders according to the standard. How it does this is not part of the standard and does not to be. Indeed it is better that it’s not a standard. This allows it to evolve it independantly of the language – to do it’s tasks better without stuffing up the standard.

        I resort to irrational name calling because I know it upsets Phil. But sometimes I think that is all he understands.

      • “Phil seems to think that repeating the fact that “the flash runtime is not open” somehow acts as a criticism of what I’m saying.”

        I’ll spell it out for you: if the Flash runtime is not open and available from a variety of vendors, then Flash itself is not open.

        “Yes, the flash runtime is not open. I’ve said so myself – a number of times.”

        You say all sorts of things. You are critical when Jobs points out that Flash is not open, which would imply that *you* think Flash is open.

        You are making absurd arguments, Carl, and you seem upset about something. And you resort to name-calling in your messages.

        Flash is not open. Jobs was right.

        “But web browsers, just like the Flash runtime, are not required to be open standard. HTML5 can still be called an open standard even if the browser isn’t.”

        What is your point? Unlike Flash, we do have browsers implementing HTML5 available from a variety of vendors, and at least one of those is open-source.

        Will we ever have open-source alternatives to the Flash runtime? I think not.

        “I resort to irrational name calling because I know it upsets Phil.”

        There is no justification for name-calling in an adult discussion, Carl. It’s a tell-tale that you have lost the argument.

        “But sometimes I think that is all he understands.”

        There is no justification for name-calling in a professional discussion, Carl. Please start acting like a professional. Thanks!

  • The philistine continues his myopic rant against Flash. Consider this classic:

    “If websites created a lot of Flash code for their website, they are out of luck. They will have to provide dual solutions or simply abandon their Flash code. This is no surprise to such sites: their code has never run on iOS devices.”

    This is very true. There are some devices, no matter how successful in the marketplace, are not capable of rendering some websites – particularly those done in Flash.

    This is certainly a problem for those websites. But the problem was created by the devices – not the websites. The websites weren’t built for those devices.

    You can’t blame Flash for this.

    But the philistine will. Just watch him. He can’t resist.

    The solution is simply to rebuild those sites for those devices. And now that HTML5 is almost here that will be the solution.

    What Phil doesn’t realise is that there has been ongoing client demand for Flash sites since the beginning of the web and flash. Clients have paid money for such. Why? Well who cares? But the central reason has been that they wanted more than a HTML website could provide.

    HTML5 arrives (15 years later) as an alternative solution. And 4 years after iOS exclusion of Flash.

    But what was everyone to do prior to that? Tell clients they can’t have their website? Go unemployed?

    It’s only now – today – (or soon) that we can start satisfying client demand for rich web applications that will also work on small cruddy devices.

    But until quite recently the Flash runtime has been the only way to satisfy that demand.

    • “The philistine continues his myopic rant against Flash.”

      Yet Carl is the one who has resorted to name-calling in the discussion. Carl: cut it out. Act like an adult, OK?

      “This is certainly a problem for those websites. But the problem was created by the devices – not the websites.”

      The problem was created by the behavior of Flash in 2007: bloated, buggy insecure software. Apple made the decision to drop Flash from their iOS devices. They were unwilling to be dependent on Adobe to deliver this component with acceptable quality in a timely fashion.

      “The websites weren’t built for those devices.
      You can’t blame Flash for this.”

      We can blame Adobe for the poor behavior of Flash in 2007.

      “But the philistine will. Just watch him. He can’t resist.”

      Someone who has resorted to name-calling in this discussion is probably incapable rational discussion on this topic.

      “The solution is simply to rebuild those sites for those devices. And now that HTML5 is almost here that will be the solution.”

      Adobe’s recommendation was to ditch Flash code and only deliver HTML5. From the Adobe website (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html)

      So, the opportunity: CUT THE COST OF TARGETING MULTIPLE RUNTIMES & we’ll deliver real wins: more richness for clients, and a competitive advantage for customers.

      “What Phil doesn’t realise is that there has been ongoing client demand for Flash sites since the beginning of the web and flash. Clients have paid money for such. Why? Well who cares? But the central reason has been that they wanted more than a HTML website could provide.”

      For clients that use iPhones, iPods, or iPod Touches, what you propose is a non-starter. They would have to distribute iOS apps for such users.

      Apple’s devices are massively successful. There are now over 222 Million of those devices in the world; it’s becoming increasingly difficult for even closed shops to exclude them.

      “But until quite recently the Flash runtime has been the only way to satisfy that demand.”

      And now it is not. Beware offering Flash as a solution for even closed shops, because the odds will increase every day that they’ll want their solution to also run on their iPhones and iPads.

      …or be prepared to generate apps for the iOS environment.

      In either case, Flash has lost the game on the browser. No amount of wishing on your part will have Flash be available on iOS browsers.

    • Phil continues to insist: “No amount of wishing on your part will have Flash be available on iOS browsers.”

      But I have never said the Flash runtime would be available on iOS browsers. Never. And I’ve never wished it either. Adobe might have but I haven’t.

      What I have said (which Phil still doesn’t seem to understand) is that Flash is not just the run time. From a developers point of view it is also a language – an open standard language – that can be adapted to any run time environment.

      I’ve built my own run times that execute Actionscript. And Adobe have built another runtime called Air which also executes Actionscript.

      Using Actionscript to author HTML5 is a slightly different problem.

      The first question one might ask is why?

      Well that’s easy. There is a wealth or talented (and perhaps not so talented) developers out there who enjoy working in Actionscript rather than javascript. If it’s possible to author HTML5 in Actionscript then those developers won’t have to change gears.

      I change gears all the time (C, C++, Java, Actionscript, C#, PHP, Python, assembler, etc) but then I’ve been doing that for so long I’ve got used to it. On the other hand I feel comfortable in certain languages. I certainly feel more comfortable in Actionscript than Javascript.

      So if there was a way for HTML5 to be authored in Actionscript rather than Javascript, then I’d be all over it. And if it’s branded as “Flash” who cares. It’s just a word. If it’s branded as something else I wouldn’t care. It’s the language I care about. And of courde all the libraries associated with that.

      Until then I’d write it in Javascript.

      • “Phil continues to insist: ‘No amount of wishing on your part will have Flash be available on iOS browsers.’
        But I have never said the Flash runtime would be available on iOS browsers. Never. And I’ve never wished it either.”

        In your message of July 22, 2011 at 3:25 pm, Carl said “You wish” when I noted that Adobe had lost the browser wars and that Flash would NEVER be a universal solution on browsers.

        We have no idea what you meant by your “You wish” rant.

        Carl, the lesson for you is that such epithets just bring confusion in the discussion.

        Cut out the name-calling.

        Cut out the uninformative two-word replies.

        No amount of wishing on your part will have Flash available on iOS. To state in a different way: the utility of Flash code as a universal solution has been irrevocably damaged. Adobe had a chance for flash to be universal, but the poor performance, bloat, and security problems with Flash had Apple decide to exclude Flash from their iOS browsers.

        Now: please explain what you meant by your “You wish” rant. Thanks!

      • Phil asks: “Now: please explain what you meant by your “You wish” rant. Thanks!”

        I mean this. From what I’ve read of what you’re saying you think Flash is dead (or nearly so). I can’t see why that is necessarily so – for all the reasons I’ve elaborated. So I assert that what i really meant by your words is that “you wish Flash was dead”.

        That’s usually what is meant by the rhetorical use of “you wish”.

        My clients know that flash can’t (or won’t) be rendered in a crummy mobile device. They don’t care. They are targeting those desktop users who enjoy a rich website or microsite.

        I’m currently retooling for HTML5. I’m writing my own tools to leverage the 3D canvas of HTML5.

        But I am also looking forward to the next wave of tools from Adobe. And if it includes Flash I’ve got nothing against that. And if not I don’t care.

        But you seem to wish otherwise.

      • Phil repeats, ad nauseum, his assertion:

        “No amount of wishing on your part will have Flash available on iOS. ”

        How do I intelligently respond to such a jammed record? It’s like talking to a brick wall. When this happens I must give up. His neurons have obviously stopped firing. Rest in peace Phil.

      • “Phil asks: “Now: please explain what you meant by your “You wish” rant. Thanks!”
        I mean this. From what I’ve read of what you’re saying you think Flash is dead (or nearly so).”

        I think it’s dead in the browser. No rational client developing a new website would use Flash to do that, because the would *also* have to create a site for all the users who don’t use Flash. Adobe admitted the same thing — advocating HTML5 instead of Flash — on their official blog last fall.

        If you develop Flash-based web code, you will constantly be in risk of the same thing: clients who realize in the middle of the game that they need to deliver something for their iOS users.

        “I can’t see why that is necessarily so – for all the reasons I’ve elaborated.”

        What you fail to understand: I don’t care. If you want to deliver some proprietary solution to your clients, that’s fine by me. Real users on public websites will se an ever-declining amount of Flash.

        “So I assert that what i really meant by your words is that ‘you wish Flash was dead’.”

        Not exactly. The real message: all of the naysayers that thought that Apple would have to add Flash to iOS were dead-wrong. The web — and Apple’s mobile devices — operates just fine without Flash.

        Flash may have its place for proprietary solutions, but it will never be a general solution.

        “That’s usually what is meant by the rhetorical use of ‘you wish’.”

        Please don’t make rhetorical postings in a discussion. It’s a strange behavior to make an ambiguous posting and then get upset when we don’t correctly guess what you meant.

        “My clients know that flash can’t (or won’t) be rendered in a crummy mobile device.”

        The phrase doesn’t really work, Carl. Apple’s devices are widely popular and the most profitable devices in the entire industry. Denying those facts just makes you just look like a bitter person.

        “They don’t care. They are targeting those desktop users who enjoy a rich website or microsite.”

        They don’t care until they do care. A wise consultant would have contingency plans in place in case their clients want to run the Flash on iOS devices.

        “But you seem to wish otherwise.”

        I thought Apple’s 2007 assessment of Flash was dead on. The web is essential, but Flash on the web is not. I think that Flash on the web would have faded on its own eventually, but I’m grateful that Apple accelerated the process.

        I don’t really care what sort Flash deployments consultants make. I do hope that such consultants are mindful that many of those clients *will* want to eventually run the Flash code on their iOS devices.

        That’s the message, Carl.

      • “How do I intelligently respond to such a jammed record?”

        The way to act intelligently is to avoid posting two-word messages like “You wish.”

        You posted an ambiguous message. You then got upset when I tried to guess what you meant with that ambiguous message.

        The simple solution: don’t post ambiguous messages.

  • Phil asks: “What is your point? Unlike Flash, we do have browsers implementing HTML5 available from a variety of vendors, and at least one of those is open-source.”

    The point is that each web browser is free to implement HTML5 rendering however they like (whether the browser is open source or closed source) and it does not compromise the status of the HTML5 standard as an open standard.

    In the same way the flash runtime (irregardless of it’s closed source status) does not compromise the status of Actionscript as an open standard.

    And anyone (if they are capable) can write a renderer that uses Actionscript for programmability. Whether they really want to is another matter. But it’s technically and legally fine to do so.

    Phil thinks I’m a consultant. Not sure where I gave that impression. I’m a software developer (amongst other things). What is Phil?

    People come to me when they want something made in a particular way – be it for the Flash platform, or other platforms with which I work.

    Each platform has it’s pros and cons. For example, doing the special effects for a feature film on a mobile device is silly – even if it was technically possible. Would we use HTML5 to do that? No. Does the fact that one might write up those effects in C++ rather than ObjectiveC matter ? Well it matters to me. I prefer C++. And since I’m the software writer that’s my choice to make.

    Along the same lines some sites may not work on a mobile device even if it was technically possible.

    Each job has it’s own constraints and freedoms. Limiting the web to the lowest common denominator (such as Stevie’s mobile web browser) is what a lot of clients do want. And for that they should use HTML5 – by all means.

    When good authoring tools become available for HTML5 – and I mean in the same way that Flash is deemed good, then even better.

    In the meantime we make do with what we can for whichever platform. There is no universal language. We don’t live in ivory towers like Lord Phil.

    • “In the same way the flash runtime (irregardless of it’s closed source status) does not compromise the status of Actionscript as an open standard.”

      Sorry. If a viable runtime is available from only one company, then Flash is NOT an open standard.

      “And anyone (if they are capable) can write a renderer that uses Actionscript for programmability. Whether they really want to is another matter. But it’s technically and legally fine to do so.”

      Still doesn’t make Flash open, Carl. You’ve already admitted that the Flash runtime is not open. Jobs was right.

      “Phil thinks I’m a consultant. Not sure where I gave that impression. I’m a software developer (amongst other things). What is Phil?”

      Someone who is tired of your name-calling and ad hominem attacks, Carl. Please start acting like a professional in the discussion.

      BTW: when one uses the phrase “my clients”, I will presume they are a consultant.

      “Limiting the web to the lowest common denominator (such as Stevie’s mobile web browser) is what a lot of clients do want.”

      “We don’t live in ivory towers like Lord Phil.”

      More name-calling from Carl. How unprofessional!

      Ivory towers has nothing to do with the sorry state of Flash in 2007 — especially on the Mac. Flash crashed all the time, and it was an unbelievable memory hog. And it had plenty of security problems.

      Anyone with street sense would know that ditching Flash for the iPhone was the right decision.

      Carl: tour real upset should be with Adobe. They’re the folk who ran Flash into the ground.

      Now: are you going to try to explain why you characterize iPhones and iPads as “crummy mobile devices”? Do you have a professional rationale for that epithet? Or was that just one of your silly rhetorical spews?

    • Phil still doesn’t get it.

      The Safari web browser is a closed source proprietary application. But being such doesn’t compromise the “open standard” status of the content it chooses to render: namely HTML.

      In exactly the same way the Flash runtime is a closed source proprietary application (or rather: app plugin). But being such doesn’t compromise the open standard status of the content it chooses to render: namely flash.

      When Phil says “Flash is not an open standard” – he means that the run time is not an open standard. And he is right. It is not.

      But the term “flash” is not limited to just the runtime. when I say “Flash” I mean (in addition to the runtime) the files that the flash runtime renders. It is the flash files that conform to an open standard.

      The flash files are the equivalent of HTML files. Both are open standard.

      The flash runtime, on the other hand is the conceptual equivalent of a web browser. If it is issue for the flash runtime that it’s closed source then it’s also an issue for web browsers that are likewise closed source. Neither Apple not Adobe can claim the high moral ground here.

      But Phil insists on confusing or conflating the two meanings of the word “Flash”. He insists on interpreting what I mean by Flash as what he means by Flash.

      I know what he means and I agree with him. Unfortunately he is completely clueless with respect to what I mean. I guess that’s one way to win an argument. Act like an ignoramus.

      • “The Safari web browser is a closed source proprietary application. But being such doesn’t compromise the “open standard” status of the content it chooses to render: namely HTML.”

        The browser that does confirm the openness of HTML is Firefox. Anyone can download source code and do their own builds by pulling code from https://developer.mozilla.org/en/download_mozilla_source_code

        Carl: there is a gap in your reasoning. The presence of one proprietary browser does not mean that all browsers are proprietary.

        “But Phil insists on confusing or conflating the two meanings of the word ‘Flash’.”

        Actually, I’m interested in only one meaning: can one get functional open-source Flash players? No. We cannot.

        “He insists on interpreting what I mean by Flash as what he means by Flash.”

        You’re welcome to have any interpretation of Flash you want.

        “I know what he means and I agree with him. Unfortunately he is completely clueless with respect to what I mean. I guess that’s one way to win an argument. Act like an ignoramus.”

        Carl continues with the name-calling and insults. Highly unprofessional!

        For this discussion, the words we care about are Jobs’s from his 2010 “Thoughts on Flash” memo:

        “Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.”

        By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

        The fact that Carl has a definition where Flash is “open” says very little about Flash. It does speak volumes about Carl.

      • “The browser that does confirm the openness of HTML is Firefox. Anyone can download source code and do their own builds by pulling code from https://developer.mozilla.org/en/download_mozilla_source_code

        Most people would regard HTML as an open standard irregardless of Firefox. But like those who wrote and built Firefox (a HTML player) anyone can write and build their own Flash player. So either way Phil’s argument is bogus.

        “there is a gap in your reasoning. The presence of one proprietary browser does not mean that all browsers are proprietary.”

        And likewise, the presence of one proprietary flash player does not mean that all flash players are proprietary.

        “Actually, I’m interested in only one meaning: can one get functional open-source Flash players? No. We cannot.”

        Yes. But even if there wasn’t anyone capable of doing so could write one. The fact that Phil himself is incapable of doing so doesn’t make the standard non-standard.

        “Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system ” – Steve Jobs

        “By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system” – Phil Earnhardt

        For the sake of argument lets agree with Steve and Phil. Lets imagine that what they are arguing somehow makes some sort of sense. We could then agree with the following argument:

        “Apples’s HTML products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Apple, and Apple has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Apples HTML products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Apple and available only from Apple. By almost any definition, HTML is a closed system.”

  • Phil likes to trash flash. Fair enough. How about we have a go at trashing Safari. Lets see Phil’s reaction to that:

    In the PWN2OWN contest at the 2008 CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, a successful exploit of Safari caused Mac OS X to be the first OS to fall in a hacking competition. Participants competed to find a way to read the contents of a file located on the user’s desktop, in one of three operating systems: Mac OS X Leopard, Windows Vista SP1, and Ubuntu 7.10. On the second day of the contest, when users were allowed to physically interact with the computers (the prior day permitted only network attacks), Charlie Miller compromised Mac OS X through an unpatched vulnerability of the PCRE library used by Safari.[52] Miller had been aware of the flaw prior to the beginning of the conference and worked to exploit it unannounced, as is the common approach in these contests.[52] The exploited vulnerability was patched in Safari 3.1.1, among other flaws.[53]

    In the 2009 PWN2OWN contest, Charlie Miller performed another successful exploit of Safari to hack into a Mac. Miller again acknowledged that he had advance knowledge of the security flaw prior to the competition, and had done considerable research and preparation work on the exploit.[54][55] Apple released a patch for this exploit and others on May 12, 2009 with Safari 3.2.3.[56][57]

    • “Phil likes to trash flash. Fair enough. How about we have a go at trashing Safari. Lets see Phil’s reaction to that:”

      My reaction is that you haven’t been paying attention. In my message of July 9, 2011 at 4:21 pm here, I noted the JailbreakMe hack that exploited a bug in the iOS PDF viewer. By noting that bug, I wasn’t trashing Apple’s software. I’m stating what was factually correct: there was a Jailbreak hack that only required viewing a PDF file on your iPhone.

      In a similar fashion, noting that Adobe’s Flash Player in 2007 was inefficient, bloated, and had many security holes is a statement of the facts. That was the state of the Flash player when Apple decided to exclude Flash from their iOS devices, and the behavior of Flash definitely played a part in their decision.

    • Phil says: “Apple decided to exclude Flash from their iOS devices”

      Thanks Phil. I must have missed that point. I’m glad you’ve cleared that up for me now. Can you remind me again next time you write because I might have forgotten it again next time.

  • Phil claims there is only one vendor for a flash player. I guess this website must be bogus:

    http://www.zeeis.com/embedded-flash-player/

    Sure it’s not as complete as Adobe’s version but then the same argument can be leveled at web browsers. Some web browsers are not as as complete as others in rendering HTML5.

    In any case it shows that Phil Earnhardt is just talking through his arse.

    • “Phil claims there is only one vendor for a flash player.”

      Most of our discussion has been loosely based on Jobs’s 2010 “Thoughts on Flash” memo. Jobs said:

      “Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.”

      Are you saying that Jobs’s claims in his 2010 memo were incorrect?

      ” I guess this website must be bogus:
      http://www.zeeis.com/embedded-flash-player/

      I’m guessing that Zeeis’s player came into existence after Jobs’s memo.

      The other thing we’ve been discussing here is the absence of any open-source Flash players. Did you notice that the Zeeis player is NOT open source?

      “Sure it’s not as complete as Adobe’s version but then the same argument can be leveled at web browsers. Some web browsers are not as as complete as others in rendering HTML5.”

      The HTML5 standard was developed by standards bodies. Flash was developed by Macromedia/Adobe; Adobe completely the Flash standard and any future changes to it.

      One is an open standard; one is not.

    • Phil’ want’s to correct his mistake by reframing it in terms of Steve Job’s open letter of April 2010. Ok. I’m willing to concede to that. We had been talking about such, and in that context we could possible accept there was only one vendor.

      Except that, as of February 2010, Gnash and Swfdec were open source flash players competing with Adobe’s player.

      Where do we go from here. I suggest we draw the conclusion that Phil wasn’t speaking in terms of facts at all. He just took Steve Jobs word for it and left it at that.

      Phil says that “The HTML5 standard was developed by standards bodies.”

      Yes. And so too was ECMA-262, edition 3.

      For some of it’s history Flash did indeed use a lot of closed standards. As did a lot of other software. But that is no longer the case and it has been this way for some time now. Adobe’s business model is centered on authoring tools. So, for example, while JPEG is an open standard, many people will use an image editing program to author a file in this format – and use closed source tools to do that. I don’t have to use any tools if I choose because I’m a programmer (can write up my own tools) but most people are not and will not be programmers – so there is always an ongoing market for authoring tools.

  • Hey guys, I think we can agree that this thread has become a little less than productive, so I’m turning off the comments to this post now. If you’d still like to keep going, you’re welcome to post in the forums.

  • One of the inefficiencies with HTML5 (and HTML in general) is it’s reliance on transferring large volumes of javascript to be parsed by the browser. Flash on the other hand, transfers scripting in terms of bytecode which is very much smaller and therefore more efficient. The downside being that a custom bytecode parser must be either preinstalled in the browser or plugged into the browser at a later time (a plugin).

    So how might we get the best of both worlds? Could we combine the efficiency of bytecode with the browser independance of HTML5? It would require implementing a bytecode parser in HTML5.

    That’s the only way that Flash (or any VM for that matter) can be reimplemented in an HTML5 compliant manner.

    However that’s a big job.

    One question would be whether one just started from scratch with an entirely new framework to do this. While that would solve the technical efficiency problem it would throw into disarray existing skills, workflows and production methods. A technical gain on the one hand but offset by a loss in efficiency on the other

    But we need to look at the big picture here.

    Flash satisfies a need, that many have, for work that exploits the full potential of the devices on which the work operates. From an artistic point of view HTML was way too limited. HTML5 now offers something better but it’s still not as efficient or expressive as Flash.

    Now on mobile devices even HTML5 is not so great. It’s not HTML5 as such. It’s the device. There is a point beyond which anything can be too much for the device. Be it operating natively or in a browser – but especially the browser.

    So while implementing a VM in HTML5 might be an interesting idea, it’s not necessarily good for a mobile device project. It would probably turn out simpler and easier to just implement a given mobile project directly in HTML5. In other words, those projects that required something more wouldn’t work very well on the mobile device, whichever way you built it. By definition.

    But on the desktop or devices of similar power, the picture changes. The device (and or browser) is no longer the limiting factor. While many sites are being downscaled to sites that will work on mobile devices (and the limitations of the browsers), there are still many projects that do not care whether they will work on a mobile device. In the same way there are many apps for mobile devices that do not care whether they also work on the desktop.

    However, due to the politics surrounding HTML and Flash there could be some justification in pursuing the idea of a Flash VM implemented in HTML5.

    But would it be as efficient as a plugin?

    I’d suggest not but you never know. However it could be more efficient than HTML5 javascript. The motivating factor here is to provide, not just for technical people (and their passion/obssession with lowest common denominator standards) but for creative people and their passion/obssession with the exact opposite: uniqueness/difference.

    That’s what Flash has provided for in the past. It has tapped into the “logic” of art and creativity. Are we really going to see the entire web turn into a set of sites that don’t even exploit the full potential of HML5?

    I doubt it. Creativity finds a way. Whether the Flash brand is a part of that or not remains to be seen. And it’s really beside the point. There is a need for something like Flash (in terms of authoring, workflows, scripting etc). There is ready market for such. That is the real point.

Copyright © 2007-2014 FlowingData. All rights reserved. Hosted by Linode.
7ads6x98y