Adobe, , , , " />

FlashPlatformist
Articles, Information, News, & Tutorials for Adobe Flash Platform Developers and Architects

Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time

It's been hard not to notice the adamant (and sometimes extreme) stance that a number of Apple fans have taken in Apple's defense to the shocking evidence that Apple has not been telling the entire truth with regard to their reasoning for not allowing Flash on iPhones/iPods. First, let me be perfectly clear: I own 2 MacBook Pro's, 2 iPhone 3GS', an iPod Nano, a ton of Apple software, and to top it off - I bought my Dad a new iMac and my sister a MacBook for Christmas. I love Apple's products. This is my way of pointing out that this post is not meant to be a defensive response to the attacks against the Flash Platform. If anything, this should help clarify some things for the seemingly misinformed...


Argument: "[Flash] crashes my browser/system"

I've read a substantial number of claims that Flash is an awful product in the last 2 days because it "...crashes my browser". I've read people say they have Flash disabled as a result of this, and some go as far as to say "Make a product that doesn't suck and maybe Apple will include you on its devices".

How these people are misinformed

From a technical standpoint, this is a ridiculous claim. The Flash plug-in is actually incredibly lightweight compared to the majority of plug-ins that people bog down their browsers with. The problem is not in Flash itself, but rather in the poor programming practices on the part of the developers that are writing the programs that crash your browser. If your CPU pins at 100%, it is usually the result of a recursive loop that is firing an event, which calls back on the method to fire the event again. This occurs on an exponential curve, which is why your CPU gets pegged so quickly. If Java applets won over Flash many years ago, you'd be seeing the same thing. It doesn't matter what language it is, when developers don't take a best-practices approach to the code that they write, the end user suffers. I see the same stuff happen in the worlds of Java and .NET. Its negligence and carelessness. Developers have a responsibility to uphold when they build a client-side application, and if that contract is broken, well, your browser crashes.

As one would expect, the average response to this logical reasoning is something along the lines of: "Well then its the fault of the programmers writing Adobe code..." which of course is then somehow tied back to Adobe using a similarly unreasonable argument. So here's a question - what do you think these developers were doing before they started writing Flash programs? They didn't appear out of thin air. In fact, the larger percentage of Flash Platform developers come from the Java development community. In the world of application development, some individuals simply do not care to follow standards and conventions in programming best practices, and that is where it ends. If you don't pick up the trash in your house, you end up with a messy house that is hard to move through. If developers do not pick up their trash as a matter of convention in their programming, then you're running a crappy program. You can't blame that on the Flash Virtual Machine. It's just not logical.

Argument: "Adobe is trying to monopolize the web with a closed format"

I have to be honest, this one made me laugh. Here is an actual quote from a comment that was left on the Flash Platform team's blog site:

You Adobe people are frelling hypocrites, open standards indeed... Your claims will hold water when you donate the Flash platform to the open source movement. Until then you're just spewing hypocritical BS about open standards.

Now, I'm not sure what a frelling hypocrite is, but I assume it is much like a regular hypocrite (couldn't help it). Regarding the last point about these same people that are declaring shenanigans on Adobe because of programmers that write bad code, what do you think would happen if the "Flash Platform was donated to the open source movement" as this person suggests? It gets better too. Included in the package of extremely passionate claims of blasphemy and wrong-doing against Adobe comes the next major reasoning as to why Flash should not be allowed on Apple devices...

Argument: "Flash is loaded with security problems"

Here's an example of how extreme this gets. The following quote is also pulled right from a comment left on the Flash Platform's blog site:

"Adobe Flash is a complete piece of junk. When Adobe fixes all the security problems and bugs in Flash, maybe then it deserves more widespread adoption. I can't wait until the day that Flash is gone."

This essentially takes us round-trip right back to the very reason that the Flash Player is NOT a "donation" to the "open source movement". I find it interesting that one would refer to Adobe as being "hypocrites" in this regard; and yet, it just shows how far beyond reason the people that are so actively protesting Flash in Apple's defense truly are.

The truth here is so blatantly obvious that I am perplexed as to how so many people do not see it. It is very simple: it is inconsistent with Apple's business model to allow Flash on their mobile devices. Apple makes a massive amount of money by controlling (and taking their cut) of the money that is paid for media consumption by owners of Apple mobile products. Uh...DUH! The only reason this whole thing became so controversial is because Apple was not up front and honest about it. Instead, they made promises to include Flash and then went back on those promises...multiple times. The claim was that Flash was simply too resource-intensive, so Adobe began development of a lightweight SDK that catered just to the iPhone. It was not until the announcement of the iPad; a machine with far more than enough resources to run the full-blown version of Flash, did it become so glaringly obvious that they had been giving Adobe the run-around all this time. I don't know about you, but I don't like it when I feel like someone has not been completely honest with me...but that's just me. Apple's runarounds caused many business strategists a lot of frustration, so while the community may be reacting in such an extreme fashion, Adobe really hasn't been all that vocal about anything yet (probably too busy watching all of this back-and-forth bickering going on...what a PR nightmare!).

This is capitalism at its finest folks, it has nothing to do with the technology. In the end, its all business and its all about the numbers on the bottom line. it's the country we live in. But that doesn't mean we the people do not have the power to facilitate change.

With that said, I will conclude with this -
As long as Adobe and Apple - two of the strongest technological innovators in the world - are unable to find a way to collaborate in the effort of furthering the advancement of mobile technology, WE ALL LOSE.

Ryan Stewart has some interesting things to say on the topic as well, not only from the standpoint of an Adobe Evangelist, but from the standpoint of an Apple consumer. Check it out HERE...

Possibly Related Posts:



Posted by Dan Orlando on January 29th, 2010 :: Filed under Flash Platform News
Tags :: , , , ,
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

24 Responses to “Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time”

  1. John
    January 30th, 2010

    To be fair, Flash is not without some blame.

    “In fact, the larger percentage of Flash Platform developers come from the Java development community”

    I would argue that while Flex did attract a lot of Java developers, there are far more Flash devs and designers that are using AS3 in Flash CS3/CS4 that graduated from AS2. In their hands, they are creating a lot of shaky apps. Most of the runtime errors I see in the debug player are video players and ads, not in larger AS3 apps.

    “You can’t blame that on the Flash Virtual Machine”

    The move from the AVM1 to AVM2 gave us developers a lot more power, but also a lot more responsibility that frankly, a lot of people weren’t ready for, and many still aren’t. The change in garbage collection in AS3 brought with it a much higher chance of memory leaks. I know as I was transitioning to AS3 that I remember a simple photo gallery of mine that had a bad leak and was crashing IE. So I don’t blame the AVM, but I do blame the tools. At the time, I was using Flash CS3, with no ability to profile, etc.

  2. [...] more: Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time … Tags: after-apple, articles, burned, burned-twice, developers, flash, flash-platform, shuns, [...]

  3. _mark
    January 30th, 2010

    yes. i’ve been outlining reasons people are wrongly flash haters myself. When you boil it down it doesn’t make sense and there is a flaw in their logic. The only reason to dislike it is the annoying flash ads that take over your page, but the same could be done with the minefields of javascript popups too. so really the hate is ridiculous and unfounded.

  4. [...] Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time … [...]

  5. Joeflash
    January 30th, 2010

    Totally agree with all your points Dan.

    Argument: “[Flash] crashes my browser/system” — like badly designed JS apps and AJAX script kiddies can’t crash a browser.

    Argument: “Adobe is trying to monopolize the web with a closed format” — apples and oranges. To critics I say, get a clue: a plugin is not a language. Its more like a browser, because it’s the thing that runs the programs, not the programs in and of themselves. And when was the last time anyone asked how you wanted a browser built? And in case anyone was paying attention, the SWF format is open for anyone to build an authoring tool around it. So STFU.

    And, like duh, ubiquity means there’s only one Flash Player, not a zillion versions of an open source player. Open source is not the holy grail of computing, it’s merely a useful tool. Sometimes, open source can lead to disastrous fragmentation of the technology. I am glad the Flash Player is closed, means I don’t have to worry about browser compatibility.

    Argument: “Flash is loaded with security problems” — this one is just so misguided and wrong it’s barely even worth composing a comment. If all Anti-virus vendors upgraded their threat databases at the speed at which Adobe responds to new threats with security patches, personal computing would be a whole lot safer than it is.

    I was so annoyed by all the irrational hate mail on Lee’s blog, I had to post a rebuttal:
    http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2010/01/why-flash-is-not-on-the-ipad.html

  6. Dan Orlando
    January 30th, 2010

    Dually noted John, and I absolutely agree with you on these points.

  7. Dan Orlando
    January 30th, 2010

    Thanks for the comment and link Joe. I absolutely agree with you, especially in regard to security. You’re right Joe, that argument really does not hold any water whatsoever considering how careful Adobe has been with this. If anything, I’ve been frustrated before by how _little_ access I have to the system through ActionScript.

  8. ash
    January 30th, 2010

    Flash and Flex development puts food on my table. To maintain its ubiquity, I have a vested interest in seeing it deployed to Apple’s mobile devices.

    Surprisingly, this is not my primary concern. For the first time in many, many years I am concerned about the future of Flash development as a whole.

    What is Flash used for?

    * Ad banners – annoying at best. Advertisers will start demanding that future adverts be visible in mobile Safari. I don’t see much of an expense converting existing ads (they are after all, relatively small and simple animations).

    * Games – the bread and butter of Flash. Adobe should have launched a game engine (with data structures) years ago. Flash Professional could have been coupled to the game API for workflow and productivity gains akin to Unity.

    * Websites – if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Flash should never be used to build an entire website, it’s simply inappropriate. AJAX toolkits (http://dojocampus.org/explorer/) are nearly on par with Flash.

    * RIAs – popularity waning. After years of usage, does Flex make building RIAs any less complicated than a desktop application? I would wager, no. I’m starting to warm to the idea of native applications once more. Websites coupled with a corresponding app on the App Store could be a great revenue pipeline.

    So where does that leave us? Has Flash passed its prime? Is it on a downward trend? I think many developers have suspected as much and that’s why the iPad has stirred so much emotion.

    Oddly enough, I think publishing to native binaries is a step in the right direction. Perhaps, in order for Flash to survive, it needs to drop the runtime. Publish HTML5 applications instead of SWFs. Break from ECMAScript, let Actionscript flourish.

    In parting, I think comment #92 is spot on: http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703

    I feel a developer migration approaching unless Adobe addresses its identity crisis soon.

  9. uberVU - social comments
    January 31st, 2010

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by danorlando1: Just blogged: Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time. http://danorlando.com/?p=472...

  10. Sharedtut
    January 31st, 2010

    When it comes to monopoly, I think one of these big players should step up. Either Apple supports Adobe Flash or Adobe needs to do the same thing Google did and that was come up with their own “Portable device” that can run flash.

    50% of my published work is done in flash for interactive purpose and better visual presentation. 50% is to figured out the best way to ensure the “flash” product is delivered. so Please, help flash be compatible with this new primer portable devices.

  11. Joeflash
    February 2nd, 2010

    @ash: I would not worry about the future of Flash.

    As Joseph Labrecque comments (http://inflagrantedelicto.memoryspiral.com/2010/02/just-to-put-things-in-perspective/), technologies get marginalized, but they never really die. And as Jesse Warden Tweeted the other day (http://twitter.com/jesterxl/status/8479524051), “If Flash is dying, how come during the worst recession since the great depression, we all still get job offers like crazy?”

    Like I said (http://twitter.com/j0eflash/status/8535540765), Apple may (eventually) destroy the web, but last I checked, Flash (& AIR) can build apps too.

    Google still has to enter the ring, and they could buy Apple several times over.

    1st Round: Apple – 1, Adobe – 0.
    2nd Round: Google ?, Apple ?

    It’s going to be an interesting year for sure.

  12. Bill Mackin
    March 23rd, 2010

    Dan is right that many of the arguments leveled against Flash are untrue and in many cases even ridiculous. Unfortunately, there are always a group of people that are very vocal but do not have the appropriate knowledge to substantiate their opinions. This is where brand/image management becomes a crucial part of the equation. The ability to turn those loud but uninformed masses into evangelists that can reiterate your talking points as loudly and passionately as possible, is extremely valuable.

    The real success or failure of Apple’s attempt to kill Flash will not primarily be based on any technological issues (sadly), but by Apple’s ability to turn public opinion against Flash. Something they are already beginning to do. Remember that the best technology doesn’t always win, (insert BetaMax example here). Apple is great at brand management and has a dedicated group of zealots that will loudly proclaim whatever Apple suggests. This makes them a very powerful force when it comes to shaping public perception.

    Apple may have bitten off more than it can chew when it comes to killing Flash. While Flash has numerous faults and a somewhat negative perception (in numerous circles), it also has a huge following of developers, designers and users. Many of those users probably couldn’t even tell you with any amount of accuracy which sites use Flash and which ones don’t. Most of them think they hate Flash due to the annoying banner ads they associate with Flash, but will probably change their tune when they realize many of the sites and a good deal of the content they love on the web utilizes Flash. The question in my mind is, will that realization by the masses come soon enough to avert marginalization (not death) of the Flash platform.

    Flash is a great technology, consistently adopted to create many of the most compelling content/websites, and yet it still has this negative stigma attached to it. In my opinion that is a failing on Adobe’s part to properly shape the brand image of Flash. I think any clear minded person realizes Apple is attacking Flash because of strategic business reasons, but that is only possible because Adobe has dropped the ball when it comes to Flash’s brand management.

    My hope is Adobe will not let Flash die the death of a thousand cuts. Instead they need to take this as a wake up call, and do more to shape the brand image of Flash in a positive direction. Letting the community do it for them is not enough. They need to use their bullhorn to shape the discussion and enable the Flash zealots to get behind their message. Ultimately there are more people who love Flash than those that hate it, they just need to be mobilized.

    Feel free to read my article on this topic at:
    http://billmackin.com/2010/03/can-apple-kill-flash/

    Cheers,
    Bill Mackin

  13. Michael Bushe
    March 29th, 2010

    I disagree with the point that it’s the fault of the Flash developers that Flash apps crash browsers. Adobe can make the VM not peg the CPU and limit the amount of memory it takes. Since most Flex folks are designers, not Java developers, these bad programming practices happen even more than they did in applets. Adobe knows the audience, that’s why they don’t provide shared memory and extra threads. They don’t tend to not give enough rope to hang yourself. I want a trunk full of rope for my apps (and Adobe should provide threads off by default with a way to enable them), but Adobe should be consistent and protect my browser from all the “designopers” out there. The next Flash runtime does limit the CPU usage when a browser tab is in the background, so at least some steps are being made.

  14. Dan Orlando
    March 29th, 2010

    Your point is dually noted. As a side note, I couldn’t help but laugh at the word you invented – “designopers”. Great word :)

    -Dan

  15. here…

    Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time – FlashPlatformist…

  16. Cirujano Plastico Monterrey
    August 25th, 2011

    Cirujano Plastico Monterrey…

    Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time – FlashPlatformist…

  17. nikon d800
    October 22nd, 2011

    nikon d800…

    [...]Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time – FlashPlatformist[...]…

  18. flash games, xpto games, games, web browser games, car games…

    [...]Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time – FlashPlatformist[...]…

  19. apple ipad 3
    November 28th, 2011

    apple ipad 3…

    [...]Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time – FlashPlatformist[...]…

  20. 手機收購
    November 28th, 2011

    手機收購…

    [...]Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time – FlashPlatformist[...]…

  21. internet games
    February 11th, 2012

    internet games…

    [...]Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time – FlashPlatformist[...]…

  22. dressup flash games
    April 21st, 2012

    dressup flash games…

    [...]Adobe Burned Twice After Apple Shuns Flash One More Time – FlashPlatformist[...]…

  23. D600
    April 27th, 2013

    My brother recommended I may like this web site. He was entirely right. This put up actually made my day. You cann’t believe just how so much time I had spent for this info! Thank you!

  24. Woah this blog is fantastic i love studying your posts. Keep up the good work! You recognize, a lot of individuals are looking around for this information, you could aid them greatly.

Leave a Reply

Type your comment in the box below: