Death of Flash
- Started
- Last post
- 205 Responses
- _niko3
i like to blame this numb nuts
- ernexbcn2
Adobe couldn't release a decent version of their shitty plugin for mobile. If they were so sure it was achievable then they should have kept working on the Android version, but they even gave up on that one.
Flash was a resource hog even on computers, plus most the content made already on Flash wouldn't even adapt to a mobile screen.
- +1monospaced
- They still could! The last 10 years android remained completely open. Market share better too. But adobe did jack shit. Jobs died a long time ago.monospaced
- vaxorcist0
yes, been dead for a while, but the nails in coffin for me were:
1. no "back button" unless you code it, or (later) use a library, so we ended up re-inventing the browser not so well.... with lots of wasted time, as flash isn't about the page metaphor, but users kept demanding a back button
2. action-scrapped... 2.0 code useless in 3.0, etc... and the "hand off" from another developer meant that a few weeks were spent figuring out how they did things before you started anything new....
3. slow/fast... not as responsive as I'd like, depending on speed of network more than I'd like....
4. XML parsing was cool, but so many exceptions and oddities that we had to write a ton of filtering scripts to fix stuff coming from a CMS to the XML file that flash apps were supposed to read in and would choke on all sorts of random things that other XML parsers would not choke on...
- err1
We have to remember the best thing about flash was compression. All the HTML5 projects I've worked on were all bloated to hell.
Google webdesigner is great an all. But it still produces projects that weigh 500% bigger than what I can do in flash in half the time.
Let's not forget HTML5 is annoying when it comes to browser support.
I think adobe should have taken out half the functionality of flash and made the plugin run as fast and clean as possible to become the new gif or something.
- I agree with your last statement. Adobe had a responsibility to make Flash more mobile friendly.monospaced
- But the designer can do that by being a designer and just not adding too much.CyBrainX
- formed0
Adobe was caught sleeping, no doubt. Jobs took the chance to not only kill a competitor, but to solidify Apple's profits via apps. Brilliant business move, imho, but he did kill an industry and send well paid programmers to the streets.
I still care because much of what I do benefits from Flash (still used on large touchscreens, which now is a headache to keep things coordinated, before you could use literally the same file).
I am fine with the way it is today - boring and predictable. All about money, money, money. Flash would have evolved in the same way, eventually - cleaner, more minimal, mobile friendly, etc. Just look at how long its taken this HTML5 to really work and it is still ages from the flexibility Flash had.
- Sounds like your problem is really with Adobe for not letting it evolve?monospaced
- Nope, it's with Jobs killing it, Adobe wasn't given a chanceformed
- Agreed. And bash Flash all you want, what was the better alternative? No answer then and not ever 5 years later.CyBrainX
- Since Jobs didn't work at Adobe, I find it hard how he could personally "kill" Flash. I mean, it's still around.monospaced
- formed0
Looking at how the web is now, Flash was a decade ahead of its time. Jobs would have no argument (as ridiculous as it was) that it wouldn't run on mobile as phones get bigger and bigger.
Not sure when we'll see nice websites again, it seems that the interest in pure creativity was killed along with Flash (I could probably write a thesis how Apple killed creativity, monopolized it and now makes billions from their dynasty...someone should write a book!).
Flash is still there, though, and still superior in many regards. I doubt that is going to change soon.
- Nobody stopped people from using Flash, Apple only didn't support itmonospaced
- That is enough to scare clients and shift development. People want cross platform, and Apple refused to allow Flash. Plain and simple.instrmntl
- simple.instrmntl
- then why didn't the scared clients instead opt to support the platforms that did support flash?monospaced
- mono - your argument is just illogical. Who would choose to not create for the most dominant device? That's just sillyformed
- ESKEMA0
Google Killed Flash
- long after Jobs killed itformed
- Yeah, but they still make Flash ads, DoubleClick.fyoucher1
- Jobs didn't kill Flash. His company simply didn't allow it on its platform.monospaced
- whatsup0
^ This is the second time I've heard this, "bringing us back to 1998" on the basis that we are not using flash. Whether we use flash or not, it doesn't really matter to the consumer, until they meet a flash website.
Ok, so at a developer's standpoint, you'd weigh out the best possible technologies, as Apple has and they made their choice. A wise decision and BTW a Green decision too. Energy savings alone gets a big thumbs up. However, if you're willing to fight the fight... what can you do in Flash that you would not be able to with HTML5 in the future?
Doing simple 3d animation between two transitioning states with HTML5 was a cinch. I've not seen this possible within Flash, and all the 3d there was not real 3d. After seeing this in HTML5, I now think that it may be possible for better games within in comparison to Flash.
The fact that a flash player updates itself more frequently in comparison to these HTML standards, still flash has to deal with spreading the update across all browsers. However, HTML5 could update as frequently as the browser updated, but there wouldn't be any need to.
I thought the open standards issue is a big thumbs up for developers. With a flash player, you're either a flash developer or not. Leaving all the others in the dust. This new direction Apple has taken pretty much opens itself to a larger developer community. If that's not a worthy goal, then what is?
my2
- apple fan boyspraycan
- i simply posted it because it was something i hadnt thought ofsixfngers
- i dont care what i have to develop in i can do whateversixfngers
- damn i hate breaking up comments like thissixfngers
- oops! this was @ projectilewhatsup
- BTW- @ spraycan - apple fan boy? I highly doubt that but sounds like you put alot of thinking into that thought.whatsup
- dbloc0
YOU WILL DIE BEFORE FLASH DOES.
- inteliboy0
"Its crazy that apple users are the only one constantly finding reasons to defend their allegiance to a brand that keep on screwing them"
How has Apple ever screwed me?
Man some bs is thrown around when it comes to Apple.
- rams at x 10000 times the market price, $1000 = €1000 = £1000, etc, etc.... just know your comp and you'll see where you're getting itGeorgesII
- you're getting screwedGeorgesII
- yes because the Adobe CS4 MC = 2499$ = 2545£ = 3,272.40€.
much better...ESKEMA - so? i never understand why people give a crap about how I spend my money.inteliboy
- and the overpricing thing can be debated anyway... not that it will get anywhere.inteliboy
- detritus0
- Whats this.
http://www.virginame…pillhead - It's Flash.detritus
- "the Jesus phone"!twokids
- Whats this.
- jhey0
^
make this in html 5:
grooveshark.comor this:
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703- don't see anything in grooveshark that can't be accomplished in html/jsacescence
- Did you create an account, que up music, play, reload it, etc.? It can be done in other languages, but Flash makes the most sense.jhey
- ... most sensejhey
- Not really. You'd be better off pointing to something with super detailed animation.ukit
- fyoucher10
Flash not on the iPhone / iPad:
Here are my thoughts on that...
Apple just bought Quattro Wireless (mobile advertising). Currently, on the web, Flash Player is what is used to serve rich media ads. Whether it be video, those overlay ads you see, or little mini commercials made at 40k...99% of those ads are delivered in Flash, a piece of SOFTWARE made by Adobe. Software is where all of the money is at. Now if Adobe Flash Player could run on an iPhone or iPad, any company could make a iDevice compatible site and run ads made from Flash to generate revenue. Maybe Apple wants a piece of that. Maybe their making their own proprietary software to deliver ads specifically on their devices. In a few years, just about everyone will have an iPhone or iPad (well, that's what Apple is banking on). That'll open up a new area in advertising and advertising is BIG money. Move on over Adobe. Apple controls what goes on their devices. They want a lil' piece of that Flash action.
- eieio0
ipad doesn't have flash because apple is creating and protecting another platform for this lucrative mac app industry that has popped up. can't really have that if flash is all go. there's nothing inherently bad about flash and its not going anywhere but the personal computing world is definitely being divided up.
- BusterBoy0
After taking a look at Zeldman's article, it just reinforces how dumb this whole argument is...tons of contradictions and inaccuracies when thinking outside the "developer's bubble".
Joe Public couldn't give a fuck if a site uses HTML5, Javascript or Flash, as long as it works. IMHO, Flash is so ubiquitous that the whole plugin debate is pretty silly. How many Browsers out there that take almost 100% of the market? Bugger all so a lot of the "standards movement" kind of reminds me of the climate change debate...there's some truth but it's mired in so much politically correct bullshit.
- lol, but browsers all together are more ubiquitous than flash, and they run on macs and netbooks. Flash essentially doesn't.Pupsipu
- doesn't. It's not for mac lol. For all it's ubiquity if it runs like shit for 10% of users, what's the point?
Pupsipu - What's the LOL for? Flash is more ubiquitous than the Mac OS so what's your point?BusterBoy
- and browsers are on windows AND macs. And they run consistently on both.Pupsipu
- the LOL is for you trying to equate Flash to an individual browser, that's misleading.Pupsipu
- individual browsers don't need to have 100% penetration, all together they have 100% penetration. While Flash is essentially 90%, not for mac.Pupsipu
- essentially 90%, not for Mac.Pupsipu
- Flash is 98%. And there are hardly any browser issues there. Flash reaches people more reliably for the foreseeable future.CyBrain
- ideaist0
I miss Macromedia...
: (
- & they miss their sf officesversion3
- i miss adobe vs macromedia competing for our attentionSlashPeckham
- I miss saying Macromedia Flash.
Adobe Flash sounds shitty.shplashtik
- BusterBoy0
Steve Jobs is more of an arrogant cock than I ever thought he was. The cost of re-engineering and adopting new technologies (that don't exist yet I might add) far outweighs any potential loss to Apple by supporting Flash.
He's turned into a bigger cunt than anyone at Google or Microsoft.
PS I own 2 Macpros, a MBP, an iPhone and 3 iPods and fucked if I'm going to fork out money for that iPad piece of garbage.
- stewdio0
@SteveJobs. Google also does not like Flash either. Their "03D" project is indeed hardware-accelerated 3D rendering via JavaScript. No Flash involved.
- do you think people will be willing to download the plug-in?ayport
- nothing can be truly hardware accelerated thru javascriptspraycan
- YouTube is Flash...will they port it to JavaScript? spose they could.WrappedInBooks
- gabe0
apple/microsoft have hostility towards flash? news to me.
anyway, pretty sure it's here to stay, especially with CS5's ability to publish SWFs as apps for ipad/iphone/etc
- silverlight and it doesn't run on istuffversion3
- Add Google to the list actually - not hostility maybe but as a booster of HTML5ukit
- Huh? Silverlight runs on iStuffmonkeyshine
