The Flash saga continues: Adobe responds to charges of "laziness"
Posted Feb 5th 2010 7:00AM by Chris Rawson
Kevin Lynch, CTO of Adobe, has posted the latest riposte in the ongoing fencing match between Apple and Adobe concerning the lack of Flash support in Apple's portable products, including the iPad. Apple's latest word on the subject reputedly came from Steve Jobs himself at the recent Town Hall meeting with Apple employees, where he characterized Adobe as "lazy," condemned the plugin's poor performance on the OS X platform, and predicted a future where HTML5 would supplant Flash. Presumably in response to those comments, Adobe's Lynch has argued in favor of Flash, citing the plugin's ubiquity, flexibility, and Adobe's commitment to "focus on enabling our customers to do their best work, and helping them reach people effectively and reliably around the world across operating systems, browsers, and a variety of devices."Lynch acknowledges the rise of HTML5 video in his post, but he notes that he sees the two technologies as co-existing rather than "one replacing the other." He also claims that since no standard implementation of HTML5 video exists, widespread adoption of HTML5 in place of Flash would lead us back to the "dark ages of video on the Web with incompatibility issues." He also re-affirms Adobe's commitment to bring Flash 10.1 to mobile platforms like the Nexus One, and he claims that 10.1 provides enhanced performance across a variety of platforms. His claim is true -- our own testing showed substantial improvements in Flash 10.1's performance on OS X -- but whether those improvements are enough to enable it to run well on iPhone OS is another story.
What's most interesting about Lynch's post isn't within the main body of the post, but rather in the comments that follow. Read on to find out more.
[Via The Register]
In the comments section on Lynch's post, he makes the following statement: "I can tell you that we don't ship Flash with any known crash bugs, and if there was such a widespread problem historically Flash could not have achieved its wide use today." That's an interesting statement. Let's consider the particulars of it.
Lynch claims Flash is installed on 98% of computers on the internet. If we're being extremely generous, we could say that OS X makes up 10% of those computers, and we could say Linux runs on an additional 1%. So, out of all the computers hooked up to the internet that run Flash, 89% of them are running some flavor of Windows. If Flash runs just fine on Windows but has middling to terrible performance on other platforms (which is usually the case), it's all too easy to dismiss these problems as not being "widespread" -- even if millions of OS X and Linux users are experiencing poor performance from Flash, many millions more Windows users aren't.
Lynch himself admits that "given identical hardware, Flash Player on Windows has historically been faster than the Mac, and it is for the most part the same code running in Flash for each operating system." You know what? That's exactly the problem right there. That's where the accusations of laziness are coming from. If Flash is optimized for Windows but doesn't run well on Unix-based platforms using the same hardware, it's Adobe's job to modify its code to improve performance. It's not Apple's job, it's not Linus Torvalds's job, it's Adobe's job. Even Microsoft knows better than to expect Office for Windows to run in Mac OS X with the same code; that's why Office for Mac exists.
As for Flash's commitment to mobile platforms? The writing is already on the wall for that one: Firefox for Maemo disabled plugin support for its latest release because "the Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn't meet our standards." Remind me again why people are bashing Apple for keeping Flash off the iPad?
Oh, yeah: Hulu. Many people are coming out in defense of Flash because they want to view videos from the site on their iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads, but until or unless Hulu moves away from Flash to HTML5 or some other solution, they're unable to do so. Mike Schuster of Minyanville summed up the anti-Apple side of the argument pretty succinctly by saying, "Effectively blocking the site comes solely at the customers' expense and directs them to Apple's pay content in the worst way possible, and it's in direct opposition of net neutrality and an open Web."
Hang on. Did he really just use the words "net neutrality" and "open Web" in the same paragraph as the word "Hulu"?
This is what an open Web looks like?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Millertime660 said 7:11AM on 2-05-2010
First comment of mine.... I just needed to say BRAVO!!
Reply
Øyvind S said 7:22AM on 2-05-2010
I think it is sad to see a publication like TUAW jump on the flash bash wagon simply because Steve Jobs said he dislikes flash.
I need flash on my tablet of choice. To much important content exists in flash for me to use iPad. It’s ok for an iPhone, but an iPad would fill a different need in my work.
Of course i wish the iPad the best of luck, but i believe the lack of Flash is more about Apples wish to sell their own applications, and also creating another Apple-only advertising channel. And by dismissing flash, 99% of the advertisment on the internet would not work, making web pages loose money. Enter Apple’s ny darling, Quattro.
Reply
Sam said 7:36AM on 2-05-2010
@Øyvind S
You bring up a very good point, especially about advertising.
Kelmon said 7:38AM on 2-05-2010
While I won't argue that content important to you may only be available in Flash format for the moment, I do wonder about the rest of your comment. Are you really suggesting that not supporting Flash is an effort to give Apple a stranglehold over World Wide Web advertising through the support of web standards that no one else understands? Doesn't Google already have this market sewn up?
I'm sorry but if no Flash means no annoying adverts (ClickToFlash or not) then I, for one, will be doing the happy dance. Advertisers in this respect can evolve or die.
Certainly, I don't see a Machiavellian plot by Apple to push all content onto the iTunes Store. All I see is a move by them to get everyone else to change how they deliver their content because Flash on the OS X platform is rubbish and they don't want to be beholden to Adobe.
Vortograph said 9:56AM on 2-05-2010
Everything Jobs said was true about the shortcomings of Flash and the complacentcy of Adobe. And in brilliant fashion, he has lit a fire under Adobe's ass. Everyone wants Flash content on their devices and this little clash might have just made that happen. We can thank Tuaw for insightful reporting and taking a stand on the issue.
Todd Sieling said 9:54AM on 2-05-2010
Another Apple-only advertising channel? I don't follow - what other Apple-only ad channels are there?
Also, as far as I know, Google ads in html work just fine on the iphone and ipad.
simon.banyard said 10:11AM on 2-05-2010
The whole 'protecting revenue stream' argument is such a strawman! It's pretty clear from the last financial report that the App store isn't a profit centre. Let's not forget that originally 3rd party apps were going to be exclusively web apps! Which would have ment no revenue from apps for Apple!
Izzy said 10:01AM on 2-05-2010
Personally, I don't need flash in my life. It's a resource hog on my PC and functions halfway at best on my Mac. About the only thing I use it for is Mafia Wars.
Jeff said 10:02AM on 2-05-2010
I don't think it's sad at all, and I don't think TUAW is posting this simply because the Great Steve dislikes Flash.
Flash sucks, plain and simple. It's even worse on OS X and Linux, both of which are platforms I depend on.
It's only ubiquitous because prior to HTML5 there was no simple way to do video and various animations on websites without tons of different plug-ins. Flash did a great job of centralizing that within the one plug-in. However it's day has passed.
I love the whining about no Flash on the iPad and iPhone because I find it amusing. I don't have Flash on my MacBook Pro or my Thinkpad. NoScript assures me of that. ;)
Holy Molly said 10:08AM on 2-05-2010
@Todd, without flash, there is no place for premium advertising on the iphone. Text and gif’s are the equialent of craigslist. Big brands with big news demand rich content advertising, wich is the equialent of more lucrative ads.
Also, Apple will start rejecting apps that are geographically targeted - read this thing at gizmodo:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/02/a-hint-at-apples-mobile-advertising-plans/
I presonally find this very smart businesswise, but some people will probably complain about apple being greedy and so on...
Dale said 10:22AM on 2-05-2010
Let's hope the comment system doesn't mangle this. Here is a very small piece of code I wrote that detects the presence of Flash. On the iPhone, it correctly tells me I do not have Flash. Instead of displaying a blue Lego block, I can display a static image, or DHTML, or anything else I want:
var hasflash = false;
if (navigator.plugins != null && navigator.plugins.length > 0) {
for (i = 0; i < navigator.plugins.length; i++) {
if (navigator.plugins[i].name.indexOf('Shockwave Flash') > -1) {
hasflash = true;
break;
}
}
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) {
try {
var ax = new ActiveXObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.9");
var v = ax.GetVariable("$version");
hasflash = true;
} catch(e) {
}
}
if (hasflash == true) {
alert('You have Flash.');
} else {
alert('You do not have Flash.');
}
Removing Flash from the equasion does not have to mean the end of advertising, nor does it have to mean forcing people to use an Apple solution.
macserv said 11:42AM on 2-05-2010
You can also do that within your HTML, using IE Conditional Comments.
Alternative content... no more blue block
And it validates when an EMBED element won't. :)
macserv said 11:45AM on 2-05-2010
Never mind, the comment system strips tags instead of converting them. Just look here:
http://bit.ly/swfobstatic
Noah Ramon said 12:10PM on 2-05-2010
Oh, TUAW (and many others) have been bashing Flash for FAR longer than Jobs's latest salvo, or the news that the original iPhone wouldn't support Flash - I've been aginnit since it was Macromedia Flash. It encourages bad web design, it's slow, and most important of all :
IT CRASHES OUR BROWSERS. REPEATEDLY.
When Adobe's own bloggers recommend using Flash blockers because it otherwise crashes your browser, maybe that's a sign that their dog food is not worth eating.
Jason said 1:29PM on 2-05-2010
@Molly,
Isn't Craigslist unraveling the "Big Brands with Big News" of yester-year? (Hint: Newspapers...)
P.S. Rich content advertising is an overly-demanding pain in the ass. Flash ads are a security-threat, and a marvelously annoying work of art. (All those Flash ads with auto-sound/speech/whatever?)
Good riddance, Flash.
cjschrissouth said 3:17PM on 2-05-2010
Thats right steve jobs fanboys...downvote anything HE doesnt like
Kelmon said 7:25AM on 2-05-2010
"Oh, yeah: Hulu. Many people are coming out in defense of Flash because they want to view videos from the site on their iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads, but until or unless Hulu moves away from Flash to HTML5 or some other solution, they're unable to do so."
In the UK we have the BBC iPlayer instead and, on a Mac, that runs via Flash. However, it also works fine on the iPhone because the iPhone version of the service (not an App, although I believe one is supposed to be coming) uses h.264 streaming instead. It didn't used to be this way but if the BBC is prepared to deliver solutions that don't depend on Flash then I don't suppose the makers of Hulu would not do it as well if there was a sufficient audience for their programs that do not have access to Flash. Frankly, they need us more than we need them...
Reply
pax copia said 11:21AM on 2-05-2010
People need to understand the fact that having a flash player does not mean they get to view Hulu content.
Hulu would most likely block the iPad as they ended up doing with the PS3:
http://gizmodo.com/5315896/hulu-speaks-on-ps3-blocking-its-the-content-providers
Level 5 said 7:29AM on 2-05-2010
Again, it's about choice. I won't be using Flash on my Nexus One, but soon, I'll be able to have the choice to use it if I need it in a pinch. The problem is iPhone users will not have this choice. Given my experiences with shitty Windows Mobile phones running Flash for YEARS, we all know the iPhone has the specs, and I speak from experience saying the battery argument is also out. It just needs to be a manual install. Give it an icon on the app screen to toggle it on and off, and let the users decide what they want. Face it, most folks just want Flash to play games on Facebook. Choice.. apparently not something Apple's entirely versed in.
Reply
Dale said 10:30AM on 2-05-2010
I think as much as nefarious reasons come into play, Apple also cares about the user experience - mostly because if anything is amiss, they get the blame regardless of whose fault it is.
Flash will not be a perfect experience - many games and sites will not scale well to a small touch screen device, and the battery and system performance issues will rear their ugly heads all too frequently. Some of us are smart enough to realise none of that is Apple's doing, but we're the minority.
Rather than deal with the complaints, it makes sense just to have a firm position of blocking it outright.