Adobe Not Worried About the Future of Flash

An anonymous reader writes "Adobe company man John Dowdell isn't worried about the future of Flash. He writes in his company blog, 'There's really no "HTML vs Flash" war. There are sure people inciting to create such a war, and individual developers may have strong practical reasons to choose one technology over another, but at corporate levels that drive strategy, all delivery channels are important Adobe territory, whether SWF or HTML or video or documents or paper or ebook or e-mag or film or packaging or whatever. Adobe profits by making it easier for creatives to reach their audiences. We're on the verge of a disruptive change that, I think, will dwarf that of the World Wide Web fifteen years ago. It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative's webpage. With these cheaper devices we'll be reaching far more people, and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on." The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we're going to see, I think.' It's interesting to note that he talks about the World Wide Web in the past tense. I find it instructive as to Adobe's perspective. Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either. I don't think it has one."

Comments

What about Flash games and other stuff?

[sopssa]

Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either. I don't think it has one.

Except that it's pain in the ass to create Flash-like games with HTML5. You have to use all kinds of hacks to accomplish that, while designers and Flash game creators are familiar and love Flash authoring tools.

Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.

Really, though, that is what Flash is about. If you were to go around and uninstall Flash Player from all the PCs in the world, almost all of the complaints would be "I can't watch YouTube, I can't watch Hulu, I can't watch CNN.com."

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[Trepidity]

Flash got nearly 100% browser penetration long before YouTube existed, though, and the reasons for that are still some of the main reasons Flash is used. In addition to complaints about online video, lots of the complaints would include things like, "I can't play FarmVille or Bejeweled Blitz anymore".

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[nahdude812]

Definitely, there's a whole realm of rich applications for which HTML5 can only just barely begin to dream.

But beyond this, even in the arena of video (which as you point out, seems to be the only corner of the Flash world the doomsayers want to talk about), HTML5 lacks ubiquity and consistency. There isn't even one single codec which is supported by every browser that implements HTML5 (Mozilla won't support H.264 for patent reasons), and even if there were, it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?).

Plus it's still missing camera and microphone controls.

Let's not forget that ActionScript is a much stronger language than JavaScript, and that things you write in Flash work in all browsers on all OS's if they work on your desktop, while JavaScript and interacting with the browser's DOM to this day is widely different in each browser, and sometimes even different in the same browser on different OS's. So the testing surface area in Flash is n (where n is the complexity of the application), while it's n*bv*o for HTML5 (where bv is the set of browsers and browser versions you want to support, and o is the set of OS's you want to support).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. HTML5 is moving in the right direction. But it's a long, long distance from seriously competing with Flash except ideologically. It will be five years before it's a serious competitor, and only if the backers of HTML5 all start pulling in the same direction (today they're pulling in different directions on things as simple as what codec video should use).

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[LWATCDR]

I have no problem with Flash living on in games.
I can take or leave most "all" Flash games.
Flash games don't work will on mobile devices "if at all"
Once you drop Flash for video Flash becomes as necessary as say Java. Very nice to have but a lot of people will never miss it.

Flash will be pushed more and more to the margins if HTML 5 takes off. Frankly there are lot of benefits to dropping Flash once you don't need it for Video.
Security is probably the biggest. Getting rid of Flash drops an attack vector you must worry about and keep updated.

What Adobe is saying and I think is very telling.
We do not make money off of Flash. We make money from authoring tools. If Flash dies tomorrow we will just make great HTML 5 authoring tools instead.
Heck Adobe may make a tool that makes writing games in HTML 5 as easy as it is in Flash.

So IMHO Adobe is saying that "Flash could be dead but we will still make boatloads of money with our authoring tools."

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Flash will be pushed more and more to the margins if HTML 5 takes off. Frankly there are lot of benefits to dropping Flash once you don't need it for Video.
Security is probably the biggest. Getting rid of Flash drops an attack vector you must worry about and keep updated.

How does dropping flash for HTML5 remove an attack vector? It just replace one attack vector with another.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[mrsurb]

It doesn't remove an attack vector. But it does replace an attack vector that is practically universal and can only be updated by one proprietary vendor (Adobe) with one that has a series of different implementations and (at least with open-source implementations) can be updated by anyone.

As genetic diversity increases a species' resistance to disease, digital diversity increases our resistance to malware.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and even if there were, it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?).

These 'features' as you call them, are not helping me at all. What help is a dynamic bitrate going to do when your connection is dropped? It used to be I could just start the stream and it would buffer the whole video in the background while I was viewing it, so if my connection was dropped, I already had the whole thing in buffer. Nowadays it seems only a a few seconds or minutes is buffered and the rest is only gotten when it is needed (despite the fact that I have a fast broadband connection and loads of memory that could be used to buffer the whole thing at once) which is inconvenient when your connection just had a hiccup. And there is no way to specify in the flash settings that I want to buffer the entire file as fast a possible. Realtime seeking would also be very easy if the whole file was buffered, so no need for funky streaming techniques.

They might do this for cost reasons or DRM. Whatever it is, it pisses me off! The whole streaming thing is annoying as it takes control away from you and you are forced to use a custom flash video player with a louse interface while accessing it via your preferred media player software would be so much better.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[nahdude812]

That has very little to do with OOP, save for reflection, which is a pretty natural requirement.

I'm not trying to be snide here, but perhaps you should read up on OOP core concepts and features which include classes, inheritence, abstraction, encapsulation, polymorphism, and decoupling. In fact, reflection is the only one of those which does not directly contribute to OOP design principles (exactly the opposite as you suggest).

These days, JavaScript is usually compiled to native code. And guess what: Adobe's AS engine and Mozilla's TraceMonkey JavaScript engine share the same JIT core.

Yes, but this compilation is JIT as you point out. JIT is not the same thing as a compiled language. Part of the point is that you can do this work once and save all your users the overhead of doing it. You can also send them bytecode instead of much more verbose source code (making less data to transfer). It also leaves less chance of difference between clients since the client is responsible for less of the work overall.

That's an interesting feature, but it's neither a bug nor an ultimate selling point.

Anyone who has worked in a particularly large codebase (1000+kloc) would not agree.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[psbrogna]

Things you write in Flash do not work on all browsers. They only work on browsers that have the Flash plug-in.

Let's not gloss over that: HTML5 may support a subset of Flash today, but it could eventually encompass all of it (or, gasp- exceed Flash functionality) and will do so in all HTML5 browsers without relying on a proprietary plug-in and closed eco-system of authoring tools. I think many people prefer this approach because Adobe is neglecting their platform and also because existing authoring tools from the vendor don't provide the functionality needed at the price desired.

I emphasize the above obvious point because your post seemed to gloss over the whole point of the HTML5 vs. Flash debate.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[nahdude812]

So they work in 99% of browsers (source).

Not only is this no where near the penetration rates of HTML5, it's only true for those HTML4 features which exist in the venn intersection of all features between IE8 + IE7 + IE6 + Firefox + Chrome + Safari + Opera (source).

but it could eventually encompass all of it (or, gasp- exceed Flash functionality)

I welcome that day - please don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it's too early to sound the death knell.

will do so in all HTML5 browsers

Do you really think that's true? How has that worked out for HTML4 so far? Major differences between browsers and browser versions. Some of these browsers in their most modern form still can't pass CSS ACID tests.

Flash offers ubiquity and consistency that has so far simply not existed in the HTML arena, and HTML5 has not offered any sort of standards verification. If HTML5 wants to do that, it should create a set of ACID tests for HTML5 features, and any browser which wishes to claim HTML5 compatibility needs to score 100% on them.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[psbrogna]

Ubiquity seems like a good thing in many areas of IT and I concede that Flash is orders of magnitude closer today than HTML5. However, instead of introducing (or continuing to support/invest in) new layers and proprietary standards (further complicating the stack, costing resources and making it damn impossible to secure) to address shortcomings that exist, we'd all benefit from embracing new open standards that attempt to address the issue.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Some of these browsers in their most modern form still can't pass CSS ACID tests.

Few of them, and few tests. It seems to be mostly IE that's the problem here.

Also, keep in mind that the ACID tests are deliberately designed to expose known bugs in browsers and embarrass those browser manufacturers into fixing them. As long as there's a new ACID test, there's going to be at least one browser that doesn't score 100% on it, and that's by design of the ACID tests. Yes, every browser should try to score 100%, but if a browser doesn't, that just means they have work to do, it doesn't mean the standard is suddenly broken.

After all, does Adobe Flash follow what their docs say 100% of the time? If so, that really would be extraordinary. That's one of the advantages of competing implementations -- you can show an example of something implementing the spec correctly to show that it can be done, and if the implementation is open source, parts of it may be absorbed into other implementations.

It is currently the case that you can build a web app which will run well on Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Camino, Chrome, iCab, basically everything except IE. If we could ditch IE and Flash, we'd pretty much have what we want from HTML right now.

The fact that they're talking about it says a lot

[DavidinAla]

When you have to explain that you're not scared about a trend that could hurt your product, it means you ARE scared of the trend. :-)

Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for html5

[pgmrdlm]

Like there is to block flash.

I do not want any video type stream to load when i am going to a web page until I have made the decision to watch it.

That is not an anti flash statement because I do make the choice to watch a lot of flash. But it is at my discretion and not the web page designers.

If it wasn't for flash block, I would spend all day waiting for news sites to load instead of actually reading the news. I hardly ever watch the flash on those types of sites, and they are probably the worse offenders of loading up the crap flash. Now other sites, which by the nature of the site presents its content via flash. yes, I do watch it. But, only after I have clicked the specific flash object I want.

Makes Sense, Actually

[KeithIrwin]

When you really look at it, there's no reason that Adobe shouldn't embrace HTML 5. Fundamentally, maintaining a cross-platform plug-in is not a profit center for them, it's a cost. They don't make money on the plug-ins, they make money on the Creative Suite product which allows designers to create animations, games, and the like easily. All this work of maintaining their own actionscript standards and standard library just serves to make their pay products more useful.

Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5". Would this make their product less useful? Of course not. Widespread adoption of HTML 5 means that their product can now be used to create content for even more devices, including several, like the iPhone, from which they have previously been locked out. And it wouldn't even be surprising if over time they transitioned entirely to HTML 5, giving up the work involved in maintaining Flash. They probably won't do this in the short run, but in the long run, it's entirely plausible.

I'm sure some people will point out that the move to HTML 5 opens them up to more competitors, and it does. But they've already got competitors even with the Flash ecosystem. There are a variety of ways to make swfs, including swftools, FlashDevelop, and the free Actionscript compiler which Adobe itself released as part of the Flex SDK. There are even a few other pay products out there. So, essentially, they already are in a market where there are a bunch of other tools which are cheaper but either can't produce complex content or require a bunch of coding to produce similar content. If they switch over to HTML5, they will likely be in the same boat, just in a bigger lake. Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever, but they'll have a clear and immediate advantage when it comes to "Flash-like" stuff such as animations and games.

So in summary, if they manage the transition properly, moving towards HTML5 means less costs and a bigger market. That sounds to me like a pretty clear win.

Of course they aren't worried.

[e2d2]

Here's how it will go down: "Flash CS4 - Now with HTML5!"

They will fall back on their design environment to create HTML 5 compliant applications and continue to sell to the more design-oriented customer. So of course they aren't worried. They'll just use HTML 5 output and sell to their already established base.

Re:SVG+video in IE 9 is the death blow

[Bigjeff5]

Flash dies once XP dies.

Flash dies once people stop producing websites that need Flash. It has absolutely nothing to do with XP, or IE9, or a new HTML standard. You will note that IE6 is still the most popular browser on the market - web technologies, as fast as they change, are subject to the whims of those who use them, and in this regard Flash is a giant that won't be taken down easily. Since HTML5 can't do nearly what Flash can do overall, and HTML5 video is not any better than HTML5 (Flash has had H264 video for about two years now, and that hasn't even been settled yet for HTML5), and as others have pointed out doesn't even offer as many features for video as Flash does, I think all this talk of the death of Flash is wishful thinking.

The release of HTML5 is, by itself, not a compelling reason for anybody to switch from Flash to HTML5. Tying in to the browser doesn't help much in the way of security concerns, because you have the same types of processes going on that are just as vulnerable to the errors that create exploits. In fact, for anybody who already uses Flash regularly, switching to HTML5 will cost a significant amount of time and money with little to no benefit over just staying with Flash. That's not a recipe for a mass exodus.

Adobe has also never been known to stand still in the market, they are one of those companies that continually drives to stay on top. There are dozens of examples, Flash is just one of many.

I predict that most HTML5 based video will be primarily produced by people who are new to video and have no prior Flash experience, There may be a small number of people who try to switch from Flash to HTML5 for video only, but I think a large portion of them will eventually switch back to what they know better - which is Flash. This is small potatoes compared to the number of Flash developers on the market, and Flash-based websites.

Re:The fact that they're talking about it says a l

[Bigjeff5]

I don't know, when all kinds of geeks are crying "Flash is dead", and an Adobe rep comes out and says "We've faced worse, we aren't worried" I don't think you can automatically assume they are worried.

Basically, it tells you nothing, because you can't just sit there and be silent - that will be more of a condemnation than anything. If you're scared shitless, you say "We aren't worried", and if you're not worried you also say "We aren't worried".

Basically you can't read much of anything into it, and I have to point out that Adobe is extremely good at making their products the de facto standard. Probably the biggest knock against HTML5 is it is not going to be nearly as consistent as Flash across browser versions, the next biggest would be the fact that Flash will always be in a better position to adjust to the market - H264 video is a perfect example, Flash has had it for two years now, IE has it for HTML5 but Firefox apparently won't have it for HTML5 (it's a licensing issue). So if you want to be sure everyone can see your H264 encoded video, you use Flash, not HTML5 at all.

Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.

[Arkham]

Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms, and fluid, interesting and deeply creative content; Something that tells your customers and competitors "hey, we have style!"

The problem is, we don't care if you have "style" or not. When I go to your site, and I can't read the text because of all the pseudo-scroll widgets and fake tabs, you failed to reach your target audience. Style is simple elegance. The perfect web site doesn't need drop shadows and background music -- the content speaks for itself.

Flash makes the web interesting, it's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs, it's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting, it's what lets me tell the designers "yes! I can render our company's portfolio in 3D"

Oh my God! You're everything that's wrong with the internet! People HATE those stupid widgets on the sides of blogs -- in fact most of us use Flash blockers specifically for things like that. Anyone who's not a marketing weenie avoids that sort of thing as much as their technical prowess (or lack thereof) allows them to.

We don't care about stupid online beer commercials. We don't want to see your company's portfolio in 3D. I'm quite sure it's no more compelling that way -- only slower, uglier, and looks like crap on my mobile device, if it renders at all. Content is king, not the stupid fluff you're promoting. Flash is the realm of porn browsers and morons, and the content created using it clearly caters to this subsection of online society. I for one will be more than happy when it is banished to the realm of popularity where Java applets live these days.