Report: Jobs Continues Flash Attacks with Wall Street Journal Staff

| News

Apple CEO Steve Jobs followed up the tongue lashing of Adobe over Flash with a similar attack in a meeting with the editorial staff of The Wall Street Journal, according to a report from BusinessInsider. The report said Mr. Jobs was "brazen" in his dismissal of Flash, and characterized the concept of switching from Flash to H.264 as being "trivial."

Mr. Jobs met with The Journal's editorial staff to pitch them on launching the paper on the iPad, part of which included a salespitch to dump Flash for video and slideshows for presentation on the iPad. In the process, he called Flash a "CPU hog," and said it was filled with security holes, and even labeled it a dying technology.

As with other dying technologies, Mr. Jobs was confident that Apple could lead the world to new directions the same way it did with floppy disks , Apple's own ADB connectivity port, CDs, and LCD screens.

Mr. Jobs also reportedly said that if the iPad spent its CPU cycles on decoding Flash that it would degrade battery performance on the device from 10 hours to 1.5 hours. When the device was introduced, Apple said that it had up to 10 hours of batter life even when playing a video, non-Flash video, of course.

BusinessInsider said that it wasn't clear how the assembled editors receive the presentation, and pointed out that it was shortly thereafter when one of those present co-authored an editorial accusing Apple of becoming more like Microsoft when it comes to dogged pursuit of perceived enemies, using the lack of Flash on the iPad as an example.

The Wall Street Journal has used Flash extensively in building its online presence for the paper making the topic a salient one when contemplating offering the paper on the iPad.

In a video interview, Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch recently said that his company was working hard on improving Flash, that it was focused on making it better on the Mac platform, and that the company was open to criticism of the technology and listened to both customers and critics alike.

Comments

clunker

he called Flash a “CPU hog,” and said it was filled with security holes, and even labeled it a dying technology

He’s correct on two of the three.  And Flash SHOULD be made to die out.

As with other dying technologies, Mr. Jobs was confident that Apple could lead the world to new directions the same way it did with floppy disks , Apple’s own ADB connectivity port, CDs, and LCD screens.

How many now-dead connectivity ports has Apple pioneered?  Please, no more unless you’re serious about establishing an industry standard.

Substance

I’m no fan of Flash, but it makes Steve look hypocritical to act as if it’s an either/or decision to use H.264 or Flash. 

Assuming I understand the HTML 5 spec for the <video> tag correcty, it gets it right.  Let the content producer provide one or more formats for presenting the video and let the viewer’s Web browser try to handle it.  So the producer can specify H.264 as their first choice, Flash for their second, and any other formats they want too.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

It’s kinda sad to watch, but it will be fun to pile on.

spiritwalker

I agree that flash is a cpu hog & not very secure, but I believe that Steve’s caustic and somewhat Snide remarks Toward Adobe, need to be toned down, for I think that in the long run they will only tarnish Apples & his good reputation.

A better way would be for him to give his comments & thoughts to Adobe directly along with and suggestions that he and his staff of experts might have to better the platform so that is becomes more beneficial to both Mac & PC users.

old school

I believe that Steve?s caustic and somewhat Snide remarks Toward Adobe, need to be toned down, for I think that in the long run they will only tarnish Apples & his good reputation.

???

Study the Old Steve sometime.  The one who co-founded Apple, launched the Macintosh, founded NeXT.  The one who had no problem serving up abuse.

A few snide remarks are nothing.  I’d hate to see Steve express how he really feels…

Montresor

For those of you who think Jobs is being too rough on Adobe, ask yourself this: how long did it take them to create a 64-bit version of their products for the Mac? Remember that their products are probably the most widely-used processor and memory-intensive programs which would greatly benefit from going 64-bit, not to mention the other powerful tools Apple released (Grand Central, for example). Now ask yourself how many discussions Jobs had with them about just this topic. Do you think Jobs may have a reason to call them lazy?

Here’s another example: http://www.tuaw.com/2010/02/18/panics-free-shrinkit-turns-humongous-illustrator-pdfs-into-tiny/ - pay special attention to *why* this tool needed to be developed - Adobe’s tools didn’t honor their own preference settings, to the detriment of the end user. Ask yourself what kind of a company allows that to happen? How does that compare with the amount of attention to detail and effort which Apple has put into the iPhone and iPad?

Do you think Apple has made these kinds of shortcoming clear to Adobe in the past? And that perhaps Adobe has simply ignored them for years on end? Or do you really think that the CEOs of companies take to publicly disparaging other companies’ products on whim? Especially when those products significantly help them sell their own? And remember that Jobs has a long relationship with Adobe - he licensed Postscript for the Laserwriter, basically putting them on the map, and then NeXT pretty much created what became Display Postscript, only to get screwed in turn by Adobe when they wouldn’t license it at reasonable cost back to Apple.

Jobs knows exactly what he’s doing, and why. So does Adobe. Personally, I think his attempts to kill Flash are good not just for Apple, but for the Internet as a whole. Adobe is not a company to trust with a key component of the web.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Or ask yourself how many times in the last decade Jobs and company have asked developers to completely change up on something. Compare that to the number of times the same call to serious action happened on Windows. That count would be zero, by the way. Apple has four different graphic models that Flash development team has to support, just in commonly deployed versions of Safari. Compare that to exactly one on Windows, spanning from XP to Vista to 7, 32 and 64 bit.

Flash is not going to be killed. Any of you that even think it’s possible are absolutely delusional. Technical and performance issues could be handled discretely. The real issue is that Apple does not want apps running on iPhone and iPad that aren’t approved by Apple. Roughly 130,000 out of the 140,000 apps in the App Store could have been developed (cheaper) in Flash without any Apple involvement and without any security threat to iPhone users.

It remains to be seen if Microsoft will squeeze Flash into WP7S. But they will put Silverlight in there and are actively marketing to developers about write once deploy many for rich media applications with Silverlight. No approval necessary.

elehcdn

Let’s mention a few things that don’t always get discussed in this iPad/Adobe debate.

1. Adobe does not charge for the Flash player, but it does make a lot of money on web development tools that build using their proprietary Flash technology. If HTML5 becomes the standard, their 75% market share drops, meaning less people have to buy their Flash tools. Not surprisingly, there have been recent rumblings that Adobe has been blocking the HTML5 standards groups (the latest speculation is that Adobe is not blocking the spec directly, but is blocking a supporting technology Canvas, allowing them to say that they are not blocking HTML5. Unfortunately, the objection was filed in a private forum and a week later, Adobe has not made the details of those objections public.)

2. h2.64 is patented and licensed, but the patent holder is not really MPEG LA, it is the companies and engineers that make up the standards groups such as the ITU and MPEG that own the patent. As such, the patent is probably more about protecting against anyone hijacking the standard than it is about building a revenue model. On the other hand, Flash is a technology patented and owned by a single corporation, Adobe. And for those that are short of memory, Adobe DID initially try to charge for Flash light on mobile devices ($10), until it realized that they were losing more money on selling their development applications than they were making by selling Flash.

3. Interestingly enough, the main reason that Adobe claims they cannot open the Flash source code is because they are licensing h.264 as well as mp3. [url=http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2010/02/following_the_open_trail.html[/url] Most people question why Adobe does not just open its parts of Flash, and once again Adobe goes silent.

4. I am entirely sympathetic with all of the web developers who have invested time and money in purchasing and learning about Adobe Flash, but it the truth is that it is a resource hog and it is buggy. I own a Fujitsu tablet mini-notebook running Windows with limited memory and it is forever hanging and crashing, so the issues are not limited to Macs. Worse than that, not only is Flash becoming more of a resource hog and buggier, Adobe has removed the older versions that are less bloated so that we are stuck with their “improvements”.

This is not without precedent. Jobs has always shown that he supports industry standards and standing up for HTML5 in the face of the closed, proprietary Adobe Flash system is just another example of a fight that he has taken on over and over again, in trying to break Microsoft’s domination of standardization based on ubiquity, rather than industry standards.

xmattingly

Ugh, the old “FLASH MUST DIE AND HTML 5 WILL KILL IT” diatribe is sooo played now. And the brainless minority who sees this issue as an absolute are, years down the road, still going to have their wishful thinking go unfulfilled.

I understand Apple’s point of view on this. They sell a lot of battery powered mobile devices, and being as processor intensive and unstable as Flash tends to be, it’s not desirable technology for Apple to use.

However, Adobe does have a development cycle, so the “they don’t serve Mac users on a silver platter” argument doesn’t exactly work. Regarding the comment that they pooped on Mac users for lack of 64 bit apps, I defer you to this two year old response to that outcry. Makes sense to me.

I believe HTML 5’s video and animation support will eat into Flash’s market share. Eventually. Let’s be realistic though, folks: it’s a standard that is a long way from being ratified, and is only just barely gaining support in the latest browsers. Additionally, the type of interactivity that a developer might want to build with it will require software tools to make it cost effective - expect that to come no less than a few years down the road. But, being that Flash lets developers create highly interactive interfaces, animation, applications, you name it - which cannot be replaced by HTML code - it will not be killed off by HTML. Hopefully though, Adobe will take steps in the intervening months to make it not so processor intensive and crash-prone.

I think I saw Steve Jobs and John Warnock out in a dewey meadow together… holding hands and picking daisies. Wait a minute… that was like twenty-five years ago.

man on the street

But, being that Flash lets developers create highly interactive interfaces, animation, applications, you name it

When trying to get things done online, I don’t WANT highly interactive interfaces or animation: I want

content

.

It’s like watching a bad PowerPoint presentation.  SPARE me the eye candy and stupid special effects.  How about some steak with the sizzle??

Unfortunately, Flash isn’t going to be killed overnight.  But this is a start.

Montresor

I don’t get this bizarre love affair so many people have with Flash. It seems…weird. Its many limitations and drawbacks are obvious to anyone who has ever worked with it, and are well documented on the web. The many limitations and drawbacks of Adobe’s other tools are also well documented on the web. What is this bizarre love affair people have with Flash? I honestly don’t get it, and I’ve been building web sites since 1996. I’ve used Flash on some occasions, including a project I built and maintain for a state legislature using Flash to push out streaming video of their sessions.

I probably have better familiarity with Flash than the majority of browsers here, and I personally avoid Flash like the plague. Especially nowadays that the combination of rich CSS, Ajax and Javascript frameworks like JQuery do everything Flash can with a lighter footprint without locking all your content into a binary. If you really feel you can duplicate 130k of the App Store apps with Flash, then you could also replicate them *right now* with a web app - so why doesn’t everyone do it?

xmattingly

What is this bizarre hatred of Flash some people have? If you don’t get it, you’re not as tuned in to web development as you claim.

And you’re completely off your nut if you think you can reproduce everything that Flash can do, using CSS & Javascript alone. Let’s get realistic: you can’t do this, this, or especially this with Ajax/ CSS/ XML/ Javascript or any other variety of technical poop you’d like to fling at the wall.

Flash certainly has its flaws, but it has its place.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

What is this bizarre hatred of Flash some people have? If you don?t get it, you?re not as tuned in to web development as you claim.

Uncle Steve told them that Flash was buggy and a CPU hog and responsible more often than not when their Mac crashed. Uncle Steve told them that Flash was being replaced by HTML5. That’s all you need to know.

Really people, things get a lot easier when take off the Steve Jobs monogrammed knee pads, when you realize that you wouldn’t tolerate any of his schtick if he were your 5 year old kid.

Terrin

Yes, but Jobs is using the iPhone, iPod Touch, and hopefully the iPad’s popularity to speed up the adoption of technologies that Apple views more friendly to it’s needs. Further, it seems to be working as companies like Google use non-flash technologies to play on Apple’s products. 

The problem with Adobe is that in the past it has been slow to support Mac versions of it’s popular products, so much so that it even encouraged user to go to Windows.

I believe HTML 5?s video and animation support will eat into Flash?s market share. Eventually. Let?s be realistic though, folks: it?s a standard that is a long way from being ratified, and is only just barely gaining support in the latest browsers. Additionally, the type of interactivity that a developer might want to build with it will require software tools to make it cost effective - expect that to come no less than a few years down the road. But, being that Flash lets developers create highly interactive interfaces, animation, applications, you name it - which cannot be replaced by HTML code - it will not be killed off by HTML. Hopefully though, Adobe will take steps in the intervening months to make it not so processor intensive and crash-prone.

Substance

When trying to get things done online, I don?t WANT highly interactive interfaces or animation: I want content

It?s like watching a bad PowerPoint presentation.  SPARE me the eye candy and stupid special effects.

What is this bizarre hatred of Flash some people have? If you don?t get it, you?re not as tuned in to web development as you claim.

And you?re completely off your nut if you think you can reproduce everything that Flash can do, using CSS & Javascript alone. Let?s get realistic: you can?t do this with Ajax/ CSS/ XML/ Javascript or any other variety of technical poop you?d like to fling at the wall.

Flash certainly has its flaws, but it has its place.

It’s not so much replacing everything Flash can do, it’s how often do you need what Flash can do?

So you provided 2 Web sites with slick interfaces built in Flash (the 3rd was just awful, really).  Looks great, we get the point.  But you know what, it’s not always about looking great, usually, as man on the street points out, it’s about getting to the point.

Sure you can write slick interfaces in Flash, but why?  When you look at what you can do JavaScript & CSS now, you can get a lot of the same interactivity.  Look at http://script.aculo.us/ for instance.  Plus, if you don’t understand or buy into the reasoning behind the separation of concerns between HTML (structure), CSS (presentation) and JavaScript (behavior) by now, then I feel sorry for you. 

Take a look at the site roughlydrafted.com on a desktop Web browser, and then look at it on the iPhone.  Same content, far different presentation and behavior.  While I can’t prove it yet, my hunch is that it’s the same HTML file but different JavaScript & CSS to create the different UI’s between the two devices.  At least that’s the promise with using HTML, JavaScript and CSS. 

How would those slick Web sites you included look on an iPhone even if it did support Flash?  Flash is great if you’re targeting just desktop Web browsers (especially those on Windows).  But we’re finally starting to see what the originators of the Web saw a long time ago - that your content may be consumed by any number of devices, not just the microcomputers of the last 16 years.  Now it’s mobile phones that are tapping into the Web, how’s those Flash sites designed for fixed 1080x800 displays going to look on those?  And what about the devices of the future?  Scalability is not Flash’s best attribute, not by a longshot.

And then there’s the performance issues.  I use to go to ESPN for years to get my sports news, but about a year ago I switched over to CNNSI exclusively.  Why?  Part of it was content, I always felt that CNNSi had better football coverage, so I always visited the site in the fall and winter, usually visiting espn.com right after though.  But then ESPN built a flash video player into their front page that always ran.  Next thing I knew if I opened ESPN on my laptop and left it open while looking at or working on something else, my fan would kick on high and processor would be pegged, despite doing nothing because the video player would always start on its own.  What did I do?  I stopped going to ESPN all together and just started going to CNNSI all year long, a habit I still follow.  I have no ill will against ESPN over it, it’s just that my behavior was adjusted because of the consequences that followed by going to ESPN.

It’s not like Flash is a 5 year old application that is still maturing.  It’s been around in one form or another for over 10 years and for reasons beyond the scope here, Flash was optimized a long time ago for Windows.  We’re now being told that Adobe is working improving Flash for the Mac, and it’s probably true.  But that doesn’t change the fact that Flash for the Mac has stunk for years compared to its Windows counterpart, and that any improvement is still probably at least a year away. 

So why all the hate for Flash?  Beyond not following the ‘open’ intentions of the Web, beyond years of substandard Mac support, and no help on the horizon?  Nothing really, except <sarcasm>Steve tells all of us brainwashed Mac zealots to hate Flash and we all blindly follow.</sarcasm>

Montresor

see below

Montresor

I submit that HTML5 is ready for use as a Flash replacement right now.

pie-guy (iphone game)
[First level of Another World adventure game ported to the browser
Weather Alerts - note that this integrates flash as well…for loading bars and video.
Demos pushing the envelope of HTML5/javascript

If those links don’t convince you, then I suspect you’re not someone who develops anything for the web. The capabilities that are collectively called HTML5 are not exact replicas of Flash - they do less in some ways, more in others, but I have yet to see anything done in Flash that cannot be replicated with open standards.

xmattingly

It?s not so much replacing everything Flash can do, it?s how often do you need what Flash can do?

Sure you can write slick interfaces in Flash, but why?

Well, if you don’t know then I feel sorry for you. But out of pity I’ll tell you anyway: there is, and always will be a market for sophisticated interfaces. You can’t animate and produce interactivity with HTML 5 with anywhere near the same level of sophistication as with Flash, and even at that there are no development tools to streamline the process. As I said before, it’ll be years down the road before those tools are available.

How would those slick Web sites you included look on an iPhone even if it did support Flash?

Well, Ye of Little Substance, you would do it like this. While I do agree that it’s very advantageous to separate form from content whenever you can, I also know that beating yourself over the head with your own self-imposed absolutes is hazardous to your health. Funny that you claim scalability not being an attribute for Flash, when it’s fundamental function is animating vector graphics. Sorry bub… I’m seriously laughing at that comment; as referenced above, that scalability can translate to usability for different platforms.

The moral of the story is, love it or hate it Flash will never be replaced by HTML code, and/or any flavor of Ajax you’d care to throw in its direction. But I’ll say again for the third time, for more basic capability Flash will lose market share to HTML/CSS.

Montresor

The moral of the story is, love it or hate it Flash will never be replaced by HTML code, and/or any flavor of Ajax you?d care to throw in its direction.

You’re completely wrong. Sorry, but you are. Please show an example of exactly what you’re talking about - as I said, I have yet to see a single thing done in Flash that cannot be replicated by HTML5 *right now*. For bonus points, make it something that would actually be used by the target market for the iPad.

Actually, have you ever built anything in Flash or HTML/CSS/JS? Because I’m starting to suspect that this discussion is being dominated by people with more hot air than practical experience. If you haven’t actually built several somethings with Flash, HTML/CSS/JS, or even better, both so you can compare, then why should I even listen to your opinion on this? Why would you even *have* an opinion on this topic?

Substance

Well, if you don?t know then I feel sorry for you. But out of pity I?ll tell you anyway: there is, and always will be a market for sophisticated interfaces. You can?t animate and produce interactivity with HTML 5 with anywhere near the same level of sophistication as with Flash, and even at that there are no development tools to streamline the process. As I said before, it?ll be years down the road before those tools are available.

Based on the examples that are being posted, I’d say the current state of HTML, JavaScript and CSS are far enough along to replace Flash right now when it comes to creating rich UIs. 

You can argue that there might be a few things that you can do in Flash that you can’t do using open technologies.  But the real issue is not what can Flash do that HTML + JavaScript + CSS can’t, it’s why do I need those extra capabilities that Flash offers when it also comes with the extra baggage of degraded performance, potential crashes, ADA compliance concerns, and scalability issues?

Well, Ye of Little Substance, you would do it like this.

You’ve shown me a layout with one element in the content pane and this layout will compress the content pane (but not the margin or header) if I resize the window.  My point was that if this layout was filled with elements that filled a typical 1280x1024 desktop screen, how would the same screen look on the iPhone’s 480x320 screen?  It would be a jumbled mess, and you can resize the link you included for proof. 

This forces the author, when directed by their boss to create a screen to support the iPhone, to write a separate Flash screen aimed just at the iPhone (in a make-believe world where the iPhone supports Flash - you get the point).  But then what about Blackberries and the various Android devices?  Or the iPad?  Or all the Web accessible devices yet to come?  Will you have to write separate Flash GUIs for all of them?  This is where scalability comes to play, and I’ll talk more about that below.

While I do agree that it?s very advantageous to separate form from content whenever you can, I also know that beating yourself over the head with your own self-imposed absolutes is hazardous to your health.

These are not self-imposed absolutes, these are good design principles and very easy to achieve today.  If you don’t know how (or care) to separate structure, content and presentation, then I could see why one would embrace Flash. 

Flash reminds me a lot of Visual Basic.  Both were simple enough for someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing to pick it up and create something flashy fairly quickly, but not a good option for creating larger applications (desktop or enterprise apps in VB’s case, Web apps for Flash).

Funny that you claim scalability not being an attribute for Flash, when it?s fundamental function is animating vector graphics. Sorry bub? I?m seriously laughing at that comment; as referenced above, that scalability can translate to usability for different platforms.

Well I’m not talking about the scalability of vector graphics, I’m using the term as it applies in computer engineering.

In telecommunications and software engineering, scalability is a desirable property of a system, a network, or a process, which indicates its ability to either handle growing amounts of work in a graceful manner or to be readily enlarged.

Scalability on Wikipedia

The fact that you’re not familiar with this term in the context of software development tells me a lot about your experience on this subject.

The moral of the story is, love it or hate it Flash will never be replaced by HTML code, and/or any flavor of Ajax you?d care to throw in its direction. But I?ll say again for the third time, for more basic capability Flash will lose market share to HTML/CSS.

Right now I would say that the one area that Flash trumps the open technologies is at creating splash screens.  You know, those fancy animations at the start of the site that scream “look at how cool I am!” but most people just ending up hitting “Skip” because they’re on a mission and don’t want someone’s dumb self-advertising to slow them down. 

For most people, a rich UI should help the user navigate a site so they can get what they came for quickly and peacefully.  Most of the “flash” to using Flash is to try to “wow” the user.  Most users don’t want the UI to get in there way by trying to wow them, they want their content. 

To repeat an earlier post, it’s all about the content.  Not the flash.

xmattingly

You?re completely wrong. Please show an example of exactly what you?re talking about - as I said, I have yet to see a single thing done in Flash that cannot be replicated by HTML5 *right now*.

I said REPLACED, not REPLICATED. If I’m completely wrong, why is Flash still prominent all over the web? Come back in five years and we’ll review. For now keep reading those tea leaves.

My point regarding one or the other has always been that what can be done with Flash is doable with very little code knowledge in a visual environment. It is not difficult to tween an animation and give it controls with easy to plug in Actionscript. Any similar feat being done with HTML right now requires deep knowledge of Javascript, and again for the umpteenth time - without development tools, which is at least a few years down the road and especially for cost of development - let alone that HTML 5 has yet to be ratified. At least one of your references does not work in Safari 4.0.3. And you’re thumping your chest about proof of concept work?

You’re welcome to ignore me - I couldn’t care less one way or the other, neither will I oblige your huffy demand for credentials. Being a chest beating code monkey is not your entitlement.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@Substance… A few things… First, Mobile Safari on iPhone today doesn’t have a useful implementation of the <audio> tag. I’d love to use HTML5 to deliver talking books to the iPhone screen, just like I have to the desktop screen. But Mobile Safari takes the <audio> tags and insists on launching the music player. Totally friggin useless. So right now, Apple is bringing all the hate on Flash when its currently shipping browser for a flagship product absolutely begs for the most basic support. It’s the one detail that makes Steve Jobs’ jihad against Flash so insulting to me.

Second, your model of software development seems to be some boss coming up with an idea and then having paid geek underlings choose the correct tools and implement. It’s textbook, and I sure hope you get an A on your next exam, but it’s not the real world. The real world is much more bottom-up, where developers and non-developers have ideas and implement them the best they can and enjoy the audience they have from the tools they chose. There are so many tools on the market that export Flash and there are so many content management systems that easily incorporate Flash into websites, Flash has momentum and creates its own weather. If you go to the average humanities professor and tell her she should no longer export (insert content type here) as Flash to deploy on the Learning Management System, you’ve got a giant, expensive retraining problem. Flash usage has evolved to what it is today. It wasn’t just put there by The Man (pardon me, I’m watching Undercover Brother on Comedy Central this morning).

Third, you are fighting yesterday’s battle with Flash. So tell us how Silverlight is going to play out. Already, to watch Olympic coverage on the web, Mac users have had to install v3 the plugin. Will Apple accept Silverlight on iPhone or iPad? Doing so nullifies the need for 95% of the App Store, the approval process, etc. So what excuse do you think Steve Jobs will come up with to keep it off the platform? That’s the question where 6 months to a year from now I’ll be sitting here typing “I told you so”.

xmattingly

You can argue that there might be a few things that you can do in Flash that you can?t do using open technologies.? But the real issue is not what can Flash do that HTML + JavaScript + CSS can?t, it?s why do I need those extra capabilities that Flash offers when it also comes with the extra baggage

Right - and what it will mainly come down to - whether you use one or the other - is cost of development. And at the very least Flash will hold its own with its core functionality, being animation.

My point was that if this layout was filled with elements that filled a typical 1280x1024 desktop screen, how would the same screen look on the iPhone?s 480x320 screen?

Whether you design with Flash or HTML, you’re faced with the exact same issues - there is no free pass for one or the other, which is why most major sites such as eBay or Wikipedia have the “iPhone” version. But the scalable window thing can be done with Flash, which was my point.

These are not self-imposed absolutes, these are good design principles and very easy to achieve today.

Maybe you’re not one of the folks who has been screaming “kill Flash!”; I would have to go back and read what everyone has said here. Yes, HTML/CSS/AJAX over Flash for the most part makes for better design principles, but as of yet rich interactive environments are not easily produced with that set of technologies, let alone animation. The way these tools will play out is still some years down the road, but I have a sneaking suspicion that at the very least, HTML driven content will never be ideally suited for animation in comparison to Flash.

Well I?m not talking about the scalability of vector graphics, I?m using the term as it applies in computer engineering.

My comment was in direct reference what you previously said: ”... how?s those Flash sites designed for fixed 1080x800 displays going to look?” To which I referenced the ability to scale a window based on window size, not scalability of a site’s data structure. You might be using the term regarding computer engineering now, but you weren’t before - you’re a slippery one, I’ll give you that. My level of experience in context of this thread - in regard to your shifting gears in commentary - is inconsequential.

Right now I would say that the one area that Flash trumps the open technologies is at creating splash screens.

Meh. Maybe you need to update your links - that is so 90’s cutting edge design. Animation is its core strength, which is why Macromedia bought the technology in the first place - and there is much more use for that than simple splash screens.

To repeat an earlier post, it?s all about the content.? Not the flash.

That might be true for you, but you don’t speak for the masses, either. If there were no market for rich interfaces and - for developers, being able to produce content more easily within a walled environment - Flash would have no traction and it wouldn’t be in wide use. Come back in another five years and try tooting your horn again, when Flash is still around.

elehcdn

Well, if you don?t know then I feel sorry for you. But out of pity I?ll tell you anyway: there is, and always will be a market for sophisticated interfaces. You can?t animate and produce interactivity with HTML 5 with anywhere near the same level of sophistication as with Flash, and even at that there are no development tools to streamline the process. As I said before, it?ll be years down the road before those tools are available.

And why do you think this exists? What other tools are available for your “sophisticated interfaces” other than those developed by Adobe? Part of my point is that Adobe is trying to develop a monopoly where only their tools can develop full Flash content. The OpenFlash forum is a great example of that issue - people there are trying to get more transparency and openness for Flash and all we get is lip service from Adobe.

Competition is good, and the only way that you are going to see that is if the web design community is able to use industry designed standards, as opposed to those of a single company. Right now, Adobe does nothing more than bloat and add extra security into their releases as they move to newer versions. Do you think that would happen if there was a viable alternative to their product?

Besides, as I noted before, it’s not just a Apple issue. I am sick and tired of opening websites on my WinXP/Win7 U810 Fujitsu Mini-notebook tablet and either wait for 2 minutes for a Flash animation to load up, or have the browser (Flock, Mozilla, & MIE) crash and/or force me to reboot. Maybe it has to do with the limited memory in that hardware (1GB), but that is a stock piece of hardware from only a couple of years ago - hardly an antiquated machine.

Personally, I would think that a web designer would rather have their sites visited, but your devotion to “sophisticated interfaces” is likely to drive people away from your sites because of Flash issues to more browser-friendly sites. Once those eyeballs are lost, I have to wonder if they will return on hardware that is powerful enough to support it.

xmattingly

elehcdn, I largely agree with what you said. A few points though:

While competition is definitely a good thing, that does not inherently imply better code and security. Those issues will crop up no matter what the playing field looks like.

You misread my “devotion” to rich interfaces. All I’m saying is that there is a market for it, and there are some very valid reasons why a developer would choose to present a site that way over a quick and basic design. Some things simply need to be presented in ways that are not easily accomplished (or impossible) with HTML.

Regarding your netbook - yeah, if you’re using Win 7 with only 1gb of RAM, you seriously need an upgrade. I would suspect that the speed issue is the site caching into virtual memory, along with a site that probably should have been designed to load more quickly in the first place.

elehcdn

While competition is definitely a good thing, that does not inherently imply better code and security. Those issues will crop up no matter what the playing field looks like.

You misread my ?devotion? to rich interfaces. All I?m saying is that there is a market for it, and there are some very valid reasons why a developer would choose to present a site that way over a quick and basic design. Some things simply need to be presented in ways that are not easily accomplished (or impossible) with HTML.

Regarding your netbook - yeah, if you?re using Win 7 with only 1gb of RAM, you seriously need an upgrade. I would suspect that the speed issue is the site caching into virtual memory, along with a site that probably should have been designed to load more quickly in the first place.

xmattingly,

The question posed was “why hate Flash”. I think that you just answered that question. Flash would be fine if Adobe was willing to provide open development, but they have yet to show that they are willing to do so. Flash is the tool that Adobe is using to hold a monopoly on website development tools. They are also apparently holding up (politically stalling, not killing) the process of standardizing HTML5. If you want either better tools or more choice of tools, standing behind Flash, and as a result, Adobe, is a counterproductive measure. Sure, people want to characterize Jobs as a whining child, but what he is trying to do is to open up the marketplace to competition, as opposed to making the web a slave to Adobe, which is what the Flash developers seem to support. And for what it’s worth, I’ll bet that part of the reason Jobs is fighting this battle is because Apple has HTML5 development tools in the wings ready to build rich-content sites, so these windows of 5 years for support are probably wrong.

As far as my computer, it is not a netbook. It was designed to run Windows for Tablet PC 2007 (based on Vista). Running Windows 7 actually is a better experience because memory management is better than on Vista.  Unfortunately, there are no RAM updates, so I am stuck with what I am stuck with. However, if you admit that Flash cannot run within 1GB, how do you realistically expect it to run on a portable, battery powered device such as an iPad?

xmattingly

They are also apparently holding up (politically stalling, not killing) the process of standardizing HTML5.

Wrong, and double wrong. Much of what you read in the tabloids is gossip and half truths… believe me, I am a regular visitor to Apple Insider for example, but much of their “industry insider” tips wind up getting debunked months down the road.

Sure, people want to characterize Jobs as a whining child, but what he is trying to do is to open up the marketplace to competition, as opposed to making the web a slave to Adobe, which is what the Flash developers seem to support.

Wrong again. While I believe Apple did a great service to the web community with Webkit, Jobs’ agenda is not the thwarting of Adobe the Evil Empire. As he commented in his recent keynote, Apple is a mobile devices company, so his agenda is the technology that works best on those smaller screen, battery-limited devices. And the selling of said devices. Adobe’s agenda is is the sales of their software, which is partly why they keep Flash in their pocket, so to speak. I paid lip service to this many words ago, on the first page of this thread… and just because Adobe has a monopoly on content creation, that does not mean that I’m going to up and quit using their products.

However, if you admit that Flash cannot run within 1GB, how do you realistically expect it to run on a portable, battery powered device such as an iPad?

Thank you for the weak attempt at putting words in my mouth, but once again, you are wrong. How can you expect anything to run when all your RAM is being gobbled up by your OS? Anything productive that you might be able to squeeze out of it after it’s booted is purely happenstance. So my comment was more to your anemic hardware than whatever site you might have visited.

Substance

Now it?s mobile phones that are tapping into the Web, how?s those Flash sites designed for fixed 1080x800 displays going to look on those?  And what about the devices of the future?  Scalability is not Flash?s best attribute, not by a longshot.

My comment was in direct reference what you previously said: ?... how?s those Flash sites designed for fixed 1080x800 displays going to look?? To which I referenced the ability to scale a window based on window size, not scalability of a site?s data structure. You might be using the term regarding computer engineering now, but you weren?t before - you?re a slippery one, I?ll give you that. My level of experience in context of this thread - in regard to your shifting gears in commentary - is inconsequential.

Well you conveniently ignored to quote my “devices of the future” comment, which is what my “scalability” reference was too.  I can see why you were confused, but to make a personal attack by calling me “slippery” and “shifting” because you didn’t read my comments thoroughly is uncalled for.  Who’s slippery now?

But the scalable window thing can be done with Flash, which was my point.

The window can scale, but can elements within it scale?  That is my question.  Maybe Flash can, but either way you haven’t answered it.

hat might be true for you, but you don?t speak for the masses, either.

You’re correct about that I don’t speak for the masses.  But the masses have spoken in many usability studies.  Go read some Jacob Neilson when you’ve got some time.

If there were no market for rich interfaces and - for developers, being able to produce content more easily within a walled environment - Flash would have no traction and it wouldn?t be in wide use. Come back in another five years and try tooting your horn again, when Flash is still around.

I’m not arguing against rich interfaces, far from it.  I’m not even saying Flash has to die.  However, I don’t want the Web be a bunch of Flash sites, that’s my fear.  Kind of like a Microsoft dominated desktop OS world, or a world where the iTMS was the only way to get music. 

I think you’re also saying that Flash is a better RAD tool for rich UIs than HTML+JavaScript+CSS.  This is the comment I’ve been waiting for because there might be truth to it.  But that’s also why I made my comparison between Flash and VB.  You can turn out crap very easily with both, but does it take as long to create a maintainable, scalable Web site with Flash as it does using the open technologies?

Substance

Second, your model of software development seems to be some boss coming up with an idea and then having paid geek underlings choose the correct tools and implement. It?s textbook…but it?s not the real world.

I work in the real world, I’m a full-time J2EE developer.  The size of the company one works for probably plays a difference here, but there’s very little “bottom-up” programming going on. 

What do you do?

Third, you are fighting yesterday?s battle with Flash. So tell us how Silverlight is going to play out. ...Will Apple accept Silverlight on iPhone or iPad? ...So what excuse do you think Steve Jobs will come up with to keep it off the platform? That?s the question where 6 months to a year from now I?ll be sitting here typing ?I told you so?.

Regardless what Steve says, it’s obvious that Apple is not going to allow on any one company to dominate Web content creation and distribution.  Silverlight and Flash are both threats in that regard and will be treated equally by Apple.

And it’s hardly Mac fanboys that don’t like Flash.  Just about any Web developer worth their salt sees the problem with a Flash-dominated Web.  I don’t know any hard-core developers that use Flash.  Maybe the problem is that their too hard-core, but they all have seen Flash, and chosen not to use it.  That tells me something.

I hope you hold your breath on this one, because this battle is going to take a couple years, not 6 months.  But I’ll be here waiting.

Log-in to comment