Hey Gruber, what about the users?
scripting.com
scripting.com
So it's helping to make Flash more irrelevant every day, by forcing developers to finally consider that delivering their content in some executable binary blob isn't a reasonable thing to do on the web.
Thanks, Apple!
I ran Debian on a PPC machine a few years ago so I couldn't use Flash. Back then only very odd setups like that didn't have it. Nowadays millions of people are buying new top of the line devices that don't support it, so the tide is turning as a result.
If Flash will eventually disappear it will be slowly, very slowly. Companies are reluctant to get into new technologies. Has DVD disappeared because of Blu-ray? Has Windows XP disappeared because of Windows 7? What about Internet Explorer? And it's the same outside of the tech industry too.
Some sites will be early adopters, some will be slowpokes and most will be somewhere in the middle. And in this last year we've seen a _lot_ of mindshare being gained by HTML5. For a start Youtube, Vimeo and friends. Let's remember that a couple of years ago Flash was basically had the whole market by itself.
I don't know if the iPad/iPod helped, but I do know that Flash is starting to lose its grip. And yes, of course people will still develop on Flash for many years to come, the same way some companies were still selling VHS players a couple of years ago. But the adoption is gaining steam.
So there's going to be stuff done in flash to appease the designs of sites. But once HTML is more mature, and people know how to use it, they're not going to do the work twice anymore.
Make no mistake, having a major platform like the iPhone/iPad is pushing that forward. It's hard to tell how or when this will turn out.
Apple's non-support of Flash has forced content developers to put down their favorite hammer and explore other tools. It also forces content developers to port their applications and consider the format of the target device.
Microsoft has their XNA platform for Windows Phone 7, and I think that's a great thing, too, as it has been proven on the 360. You won't see direct ports from 360 to phone, it's too wildly different, but it makes developing easier. They're looking for high-quality native applications just like Apple.
If Windows Phone 7 supported Flash you'd just see thousands of trashy Flash games and most would barely work. The user experience would be terrible and people would get the impression that either the phone is slow or the apps are bad and not worth buying, either of which is a very bad outcome.
Like it or not, the walled garden approach is necessary to have some degree of control over the user experience. Other vendors will discover this if they care.
A Flash SWF is not an executable binary blob. Many parts of the SWF spec are even open.
Writing a Flash player is a lot of work, and there's not much reason to do so if Adobe has most computers covered already.
It's easier to write a fully HTML5 compliant web browser than it is to write a fully compliant Flash plugin.
How could you possibly complain that the iPad doesn't support software that doesn't exist?
Let's postpone this discussion until when Adobe can show off a flash runtime that a) exist and b) doesn't suck. Is that too much to ask?
1: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/android-froyo-with-so...
Give Adobe the green light to dust off their previous work and complete it. No one will make a serious effort at Flash for iOS before gaining approval from Apple.
EDIT The TL;DR; version is, at knowing acceptance of downvotes: denial isn't just a river in Egypt; It's also the clutchings of the Mac Faithful who are going to go down parroting the Flash rhetoric straight from the hands of Jobs.
Flash works brilliantly on my Nexus One for those few times I need to use it. I've used it to watch Escapist videos, to order a pizza at a local pizza place that inexplicably uses Flash for the entirety of their site, and on and on. 99% of the time it sits disabled, but when there's the little box and I actually want or need to see the content, I tap it and voila, a few seconds later I have it.
Of course not all Flash works (though I come across very little that doesn't perhaps because I consider it an emergency technology, not the foundation of my experience). Some instances rely upon keyboard input, or hover events, or other interaction mechanisms that I can't duplicate on my smartphone.
Which is exactly like many HTML sites (where keyboard, hover, and drag-drop functionality that can't be duplicated on a mobile device is often used. I've yet to find an HTML5 demo game that actually works). Do we say HTML is failed because not every site works perfectly on mobile devices? Abandon the whole platform and embrace the App Store?
I cannot recall a single instance where I thought... "Damn! If only I had flash on my iPad/ iPhone."
Update: Case in point...
http://hugoboss.com - usable mobile site, but you can't see or buy any of the clothes!
http://bananarepublic.gap.com/ - "Flash required" error message and the same goes for the other Gap brands
http://gucci.com - it's just a black screen
http://dior.com - "Flash required" error
Etc etc, it's nutty. Car sites are a little better and usually break in more subtle ways (videos that don't work is common). Cadillac actually has a nice iPad optimized site, so kudos there.
http://mazdausa.com - redirected to a really low-fi mobile version with much less information. A step up from WAP, not much.
http://bmwusa.com - same as Mazda, a really horrible mobile site that is a column about 200px wide
http://www.miniusa.com/ - "Flash required" error page
Due to broken bones which forces me to stay at home, I've bought clothes online and it has resulted in a significant number of unpleasant surprises which are trivial to avoid in a physical shop. My (Danish) experience is that the shops that provide the most useful information are the shops that avoid Flash and uses plain html pages (e.g. Amazon, smartguy.dk).
Flash-based sites almost always makes it impossible to add "I probably want to buy this" bookmarks in the browser, so a lot of items don't get bought by me. So even when the browser supports Flash, the site starts out with a significant handicap (looking at you, H&M) ... and I don't have the patience for the transition animations that most Flash developers think is a must-have.
Also, looking at my outfit today it was entirely bought online except for my socks and underwear. No broken bones either, I just find it convenient for clothes that don't need tailored.
Oh and did you check out the R8's photos and video page? Flash required error. You can't even see a photo gallery of the car.
I am considering finding out how to disable it, the battery life isnt awesome and if my laptop is anything to go by, flash is pretty high on that culprit list.
I also ran into a problem with YouTube the other day. I couldn't find a video that I knew was there. Turns out it isn't available through the YouTube app, only on the regular website. Granted you could argue that is a complaint about YouTube, but if I had Flash on the iPad then I would just be going to the normal YouTube site and would not have experienced that frustration.
Basically I don't have a need for Flash on a regular basis. But there is still a lot of "legacy" content out there that is encoded in Flash and it would be nice to be able to access it.
People who agree with Gruber are cut from much the same cloth as people who want the choice of whether to run Flash.
Can't say I understand your sentiment. They are ideologically incompatible and driven by polar interests.
There's also an orientation called "Fanatic." Fanatic is a special case because it is its own opposition. So Joggers, Trekkies, and White Supremacists are all opposed to each other by virtue of being fanatic groups.
Fnord.
But just to make a very small point, I am not calling anyone fanatical. I talked about a game where it was possible for fictional groups of people to have something in common yet be opposed to each other. In that game, this happens with groups the inventor describes as fanatical.
In this particular case, I am suggesting it is entirely possible for people who agree with Dave and people who agree with Gruber to have a lot in common yet appear to be opposed in the debate. You asked how this can be the case when they appear to have opposed interests, and I will now repeat what I said above without trying to be charming.
The fact that two people appear to be opposed on a single issue does not automatically exclude the possibility that they have a great deal in common with each other.
I'm tired of seeing people complain about this. Apple has made their intentions clear from iPhone 1, day one. You are buying a read-only pass into the walled garden. If you don't like it, pick up a Galaxy Tab on VZW (arguably a better network) or wait for Motorola's dual core tablet later this year running the more tablet-centric Gingerbread. But cut it out complaining "as a user" about Apple.
Also: "Maybe if (hint hint) Gruber had comments on his blog, his minions wouldn't feel the need to vent on the sites he points to? Just a thought."
...this again? Really?