Adobe's failure
- Started
- Last post
- 26 Responses
- SteveJobs0
"If they had built their own browser they could use it to ensure their products would always be reliably supported by at least one company—their own."
i'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. flash was created as a common runtime to allow developers to write one piece of software and it work on all browsers, and avoid having to deal with cross-browser client-side standards that weren't being adhered to.
creating a browser just to run a plug-in doesn't make sense and has no benefit not to mention they'd lose the market penetration that has kept them relevant in this niche so long. they even beat java at their own game.
- stewdio0
I agree with you that one of Flash's benefits is that it's a standard that operates the same regardless of browser or platform. (I'm sure there are some tiny technical exceptions, but those are minor oddities that don't represent the larger picture.) In my hypothetical that you quoted above I didn't envision that Adobe would discontinue their Flash plugin for other browsers.
And when I was imagining Adobe adding special enhancements I didn't mean something that would break compatibility. Imagine this Adobe browser silently auto-updates Flash, ensuring that you are always running the must up to date and secure version? (Google's Chrome auto updates below your notice, making it a seamless experience.) What if they offered hardware acceleration for Flash in their browser, but not for Flash in Explorer, Safari, etc. (That's not really breaking compatibility because it's similar to the difference between running something intensive on a new machine vs an older, slower one.) What if you could manage Flash's security preferences right in the Adobe browser's preferences window? (Rather than that odd non-standard looking interface that somehow sits on Adobe's website.) Perhaps the browser would have built-in benchmarking and diagnostics so you could analyze a Flash app's performance; memory, requests, threads, etc. (Well, I don't think Flash app are multi-threaded right? But you get the picture.) If these "special features" don't sound special enough perhaps that's because they're off the top of my head. But Adobe's got a wealth of experts and cash to throw at the problem so just image that the features would be "special enough."
My point is that with their own browser Adobe wouldn't be diminishing their market penetration, but enhancing it. Securing it. Again I have to point to Google here. They were concerned about the performance of their web apps. They made their own browser and therefore gained further control. (This didn't cause people using FireFox or Safari to suddenly stop using Google, yea?)
As far as Java goes, I think these are separate stories because the context surrounding them is so different. The only comparison I can see is that Java hasn't been able to win in the browser because it runs like crap there. Similarly, Flash can't win in the mobile market because it runs like crap on these light-weight devices. Both problems have the potential to be fixed, but I imagine neither will.
- stewdio0
Also... for anyone just joining in... I'm saying Adobe could have better buttressed their position with Flash by releasing a browser *five years ago.* At this point, in 2010, I don't think they can do anything to improve their standing other than to make Flash run super efficiently on mobile devices. We'll see.
Even though I'm imagining ways one might keep Flash alive I should also say for the record I really dislike Flash. If it disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't miss it at all.
- thanks for clarifying. i was under the impression you were a big fan of flash. you and ukit both.SteveJobs
- SteveJobs0
"The only comparison I can see is that Java hasn't been able to win in the browser because it runs like crap there"
not really. it runs very fast, actually. i built an 8-bit emulator in flash a couple years back and it crawled compared to java. this has a little to do with hardware accelleration, but more to do with it's internal messaging system and the poor timing systems extended through the api.
anyway, one reason it never really gained much traction is because it was a complicated technology for its time. compared that to early versions of actionscript which ran on netscape's own javascript interpreter. flash offered a very, very low learning curve for anyone wanting to create complex timline-based animations and tie simple scripting operations to objects. macromedia/adobe made vast improvements over the years and created a very robust api. java was already losing traction.
another big reason is penetration. back in the day, browsers didn't come with the java plug-in by default. this is where macromedia/adobe really had the advantage. that and better marketing which sun had little to none of.
as for the browser thing, let's just agree to disagree. i personally don't see any value in such an initiative.
- SteveJobs0
adobe can keep flash relevant, by not being such cry babies about apple and it's business, and focusing more on innovating with their curent offerings.
i can't comment on their potential relevance in the mobile market, because i don't know what kind of demand there is for their technology. yes, they *can* make the runtime more efficient, but that doesn't necessitate it's use on such platforms.
anyway, they need to start educating everyone about what their product really is, and what it offers. too many people, particularly outside developers or designers with casual or no knowledge make too many assumptions about the technology and as i've mentioned before see it as a competitor to html5. that's naive, but probably not their fault as we all only know what we hear and read regarding things we have only had limited exposure to. anyway, adobe also needs to answer the call of the many developers that have been requesting a vast array of features for some time now. i don't really use flash that much anymore, but i remember it being too limiting in so many areas, and there being a large consensus on my feelings throughout the net, with some of those thoughts expressed as comments on the blogs of flash 'evangelists'. if adobe doesn't deliver what thier paying customer base asks for, then they deserve whatever miserable fate awaits them.
true story bro.
- ukit0
"adobe can keep flash relevant, by not being such cry babies about apple and it's business, and focusing more on innovating with their curent offerings."
Is innovating really a strategy (i.e., that you can be for or against)? I'm imagining the Adobe board meeting:
"We've thought carefully about the challenges we face and in the end, we've come down on the side of....not innovating."
*Wild applauseWhat I feel like I don't know is more along the lines of how Adobe will position Flash, and HTML5, in their future releases. Does Adobe just bite the bullet and wind up creating a really powerful tool for the graphics parts of HTML5 (like CANVAS, which they previously seemed to oppose) even if it risks killing Flash?
Do they try to seriously reposition Flash for use in areas that are "too advanced";) at the moment for HTML5 and JS (3D, augmented reality, ...), while more or less ceding ground with the more basic stuff like video?
Or, option C, do they just kind of muddle through half heartedly and do a little of both? Attempt to keep the status quo going with Flash, and push it forward a bit with each release like they have been doing, while sort of tepidly supporting HTML5 with token features here and there.
Depending on how effective the leadership is, they could easily end up with that last approach by default. But maybe they'll surprise everyone by pursuing option A, or B, or A and B at once.