Business & Tech, Tech News

Flash, King of the Impossible

By Glenn Fleishman, Monday, March 8, 2010 at 10:32 AM
View Comments

Adobe’s Flash, a multimedia plug-in for browsers, has become the flash point—sorry—for the future of video and interactivity on the Web. Apple doesn’t include a version of Flash in the Mobile Safari browser that’s part of the iPhone OS, and doesn’t allow third-party plug-ins for that browser.

Of course, no other handheld operating system platform offers Flash, either, but leave it to Adobe to whip up foment against Apple as a way of getting users to complain to the iPhone maker.

Apple doesn’t talk much about Flash in public, but in private, Apple head Steve Jobs has reportedly said Flash will never be included on mobile devices because it crashes desktop browsers, is a resource hog, and drains batteries.

Flash is a very clever little hunk of code. It can wrap a custom player around video, which is how Hulu inserts ads into movies and TV shows that you can’t skip over. A standard browser video player provides full scrolling control.

Flash may be best known for video, which represents a vast amount of its usage in terms of people, hours, and content, but it also handles rich interactivity, letting companies develop games and other systems that work wherever Flash runs. It’s also used for stupid intros to Web sites, and some restaurant Web developers rely on Flash, rendering menus and other information nearly unusable.

Adobe has engineered the plug in to work in many different browsers, and develops the software for Windows, Mac OS X, and several Linux flavors. Write a Flash application or create video in a Flash player wrapper, and you distribute it within a Web page. Quite simple.

As I noted, no existing mobile OS includes Flash. But Apple gets the hate because it’s still got the hot platform—iPhone and iPod touch—with the iPad joining them on April 3. The Mobile Safari browser is so good that people want it to do more than it does; Flash is so prevalent that Safari reveals all the places it can’t show content.

At the iPad introduction, it seemed like Steve Jobs went out of his way to show Web sites that had a blue Lego-like building piece that represents a plug-in that can’t be used.

In the nearly three years since the iPhone shipped, and with tens of millions of iPhones and iPod touches in use worldwide, most Web sites have made accommodations. Smart coding can determine whether a browser supports Flash or not, and feed out alternate content.

Some popular sites that rely on Flash have released iPhone apps that replicate or extend the functionality of the Web site. Adobe will also release a tool that lets Flash developers convert their projects into full iPhone apps, and release them through the normal App Store approval process.

The furor seems to be about whether Apple is doing a disservice to users by controlling the browser experience. Apple doesn’t allow competing browsers as such: Developers can create a wrapper around Apple’s technology, but they can’t offer browsers built from scratch, because Apple forbids other browsers from handling JavaScript code, which is the foundation of modern Web sites and a requirement for Web applications.

There’s an alternative to Flash for video: the new HTML5 specification, a revision to the formatting and parameter codes used to describe how a Web page should be displayed. YouTube (among other sites) is already experimenting with feeding video out using the HTML5 format.

So what’s really missing? Well, there are plenty of Flash sites—perhaps hundreds of thousands or millions—that use Flash for light levels of interactivity, stuff that could be done with HTML and JavaScript. That includes dropdown menus, where you hover over a menu and additional choices appear.

A reasonably large number of site—more like tens of thousands—host games and other interactive Flash presentations that can’t be easily translated into another medium.

That’s where it really hurts: Those folks are locked out of mobile platforms unless they create new applications designed for each OS, which requires big bucks if you want to develop for Android, BlackBerry, and iPhone, not to mention Windows Mobile/Windows Phone 7, Nokia’s Symbian (the most heavily used smartphone OS outside the U.S.), and Palm.

In terms of pure hours consumed, Hulu remains the biggest Flash-locked site. As noted earlier, Hulu wants to control the experience and advertise at you in exchange for free viewing. That’s incompatible with feeding raw video to a browser, but Hulu is rumored to be working on an iPhone app that will let them fully control the vertical and the horizontal.

What’s mystifying about all the discussion to me is that Adobe makes tools to create content, and Flash is one of the more convenient ways to make content that works everywhere. But the company isn’t stupid. I expect we’ll see in the near future ways for all its various creative applications to produce the right code for the right place.

  • jb
    We should also question why Adobe is actively blocking development of HTML 5, the Flash-killer.
  • Rather than "why Adobe is actively blocking", you might better ask "is Adobe actively blocking?", to which the answer is "No".

    (And if you're setting up WhatWG's "HTML5" proposals as "Flash-killer", you're actually doing HTML a disservice... remember how bloggers overhyped Silverlight, making it difficult for it to find its own best fit.)

    jd/adobe
  • I want to back John here: there was a public statement from a Google employee vital to getting HTML5 out the door that Adobe was blocking using private mechanisms. Adobe said it was not. We don't know all the private details.

    The kerfuffle was mildly procedural around the scope of the final HTML5 document, and as far I understand, that's been dealt with. The W3C's head, Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, has said the scope is fine, and I think it's all moving forward.

    The formal approval of HTML5 is completely separate from implementation. Adobe could hold its breath until its red logo turned blue, and browser makers would still be working as hard as they are now to implement it.
  • Could it have something to do with the fact that Adobe owns Macromedia and Macromedia Flash, which could be killed by HTML5?

    There's also the squabbling over formats, but it should support any standard video format, not just the "free" formats.
  • I don't want to sound like a broken record, but Adobe doesn't make money from Flash being used on the Web; it makes money from people buying tools to produce Flash for use on the Web. (I believe Adobe has some fees for distributing standalone Flash and Director apps, but I can't find details on that.)

    So Adobe has every motivation to modify its tools to make the most popular formats. The trick with Flash is it gives them a common platform, and supporting HTML5 + whatever means a vastly more complicated set of output from Dreamweaver, Fireworks, etc.
  • "Apple doesn’t include a version of Flash in the Mobile Safari... Of course, no other handheld operating system platform offers Flash, either."

    Most handhelds either bundle Flash Lite (Samsung native interface, DoCoMo eg), and are now moving to Adobe Flash Player (starting with Nokia Internet Tablet, now nearly everything with Open Screen Project). They may or may not include a distribution, but they nearly all *permit* it.

    "leave it to Adobe to whip up foment against Apple as a way of getting users to complain to the iPhone maker."

    At Adobe I see a respect towards all partners' decisions... what one silo chooses to do is their prerogative. But for the past two years any Adobe presentation has had the obligatory question "What about the iPhone?", and so it needs an answer. The millions of iPhone owners who visit the Player Download Page also need an answer to their implicit requests. It's hard not to talk about Apple's iWorld, but whatever they do is their decision to make.

    "That’s where it really hurts: Those folks are locked out of mobile platforms unless they create new applications designed for each OS, which requires big bucks if you want to develop for Android, BlackBerry, and iPhone, not to mention Windows Mobile/Windows Phone 7, Nokia’s Symbian (the most heavily used smartphone OS outside the U.S.), and Palm."

    I'd agree with you that there's a need for cross-device presentation layers. HTML/JS/CSS techniques can help, and almost all manufacturers are also using Adobe Flash Player for predictable advanced capabity.

    Also agree with you that Adobe tooling will serve customer needs, and is already a major contributor to HTML workflows. There's investment in Flash Player because it serves additional needs, beyond the various proprietary HTML renderers.

    jd/adobe
  • Thanks for your comments here.

    When you say "most handhelds bundle": I was unable to find any smartphones that bundle Flash Lite, although some offer downloads. I'm particularly focused on smartphones, and in this article on iPhone OS devices, because those would ostensibly have the processing power and graphics to manage Flash.

    Worldwide, Nokia is important, though increasingly moving towards obsolescence due to its platform decisions that have left it behind the curve.

    "respect towards all partners' decisions": Sure, but I don't see Adobe showing what BlackBerry OS's browser, Android's browser, Palm WebOS's browser, and other smartphone browsers show for Flash content.

    The pull side of this is not that "millions of iPhone owners" visit the download page for Flash Player, but rather that there's a reason other than people visit pages that don't degrade gracefully to the least-common denominator. That's not Apple's fault nor it's responsibility, at some level, although I know that when I need Flash, I do curse when I can't get it. (I have resorted to using a remote access app on the iPhone to reach a computer where I run a browser to load Flash. I am not proud.)

    Adobe is usually quite clever when it comes to output formats. I think about image slicing and DHTML support a decade ago, when that was tedious or impossible. I expect the same cleverness from this challenge today.

    The interesting part to me about Mobile Safari not including Flash support is that it highlights the fact that Adobe solved the ugly problem of multiple browser, multiple platform support for a consistent experience. Apple, by creating a monolithic closed platform, excludes the necessity for that solution. It's a clash of competing worldviews, not just technology.
  • "... unable to find any smartphones that bundle Flash Lite...."

    This is an older list, and I believe no longer maintained, but it shows various handset models which pre-installed Flash Lite versions 1 through 3:
    http://www.adobe.com/mobile/supported_devices/h...

    "I don't see Adobe showing what BlackBerry OS's browser, Android's browser, Palm WebOS's browser, and other smartphone browsers show for Flash content."

    I'm not sure I understand the concern... RIM does not yet have Flash and AIR support but has come out strongly for it... Android/Flash is on exhibit but not yet public release... Palm, too.

    "It's a clash of competing worldviews, not just technology."

    Agreed... sort of like immovable object, irresistable force. Adobe needs to make its customers' work easier, with workflows that can extend to any publishing effort.

    jd/adobe
  • .RIM does not yet have Flash and AIR support but has come out strongly for it... Android/Flash is on exhibit but not yet public release... Palm, too.

    Well, you see the problem: intent, not action. It probably seems different to you on the inside, because teams from your side and each platform are working to make this happen. (The Flash 10.1 for Android preview got rave reviews from observers, I heard.)

    On the outside, there's a resemblance to "letters of intent" and "statements of support" and "I'm from Missouri," justified or not.
  • giffy
    This is why I will never by an iPad. I am reasonably ok with limited choices on a phone. Its a much harder to design and develop platform. Though having had an iPhone for a couple years I doubt I'll get another, and can't say I have been terribly impressed. But with something like a tablet simply making a bigger version of a phone is not something I really want. I want a fully functional computer that I can install what I want on it. If I want to save battery life and avoid crashes then I can choose to avoid flash, but often I don't care much about either.

    I am going to get a tablet, but it is going to be a PC one, like whats coming out from HP. Much much more functional.
  • Jobs has also mentioned his concerned about the security model of Flash. Schneier has talked about the problem of Flash cookies. I've also heard that Flash allows you wrap executable code with a jpg file extension, but it will still run under Flash. True? Adobe has needed to provide more than the quarterly updates they promised for Adobe Acrobat Reader and the JavaScript exploits.

    Do you think this argument against Adobe is a red herring, or is it just an increasing awareness of security that was never paid attention to until now? Certainly the mobile platforms seem an attractive target, especially now that they support online banking and other financial transactions.
  • Adobe has just about the worst security record for malicious, cross-platform exploits and for responding to reports in a timely manner (viz., the recent very late Acrobat patch). This might be one factor, but Apple already sandboxes its apps, and could have, if it felt it was important, figured out how to run Flash in its own sandbox to prevent slosh into other programs.
  • RENHub
    Glenn-
    How much do you think the lack of "hover" in the iPhone (and other touchscreen devices) has to do with its absence?
    Thanks.
    http://www.iphonehacks.com/2010/02/flash-develo...
  • I'm sure that could be part of it, but Apple has worked remarkably closely with firms with which its interests align to make sure products work correctly under Mac OS X and iPhone OS. If Apple felt Flash was critical to the platform, it would have sent a few engineers to Adobe and Adobe to Apple, and they would have figured out how to make all kinds of things work just fine.
  • joshuadf
    Isn't it about the processor? I think Flash has only recently even been demoed on anything other than x86, and you can bet the first release for a new architecture will be as buggy as Jobs fears.
  • I have to believe mobile processors (all of 'em) are part of the issue. As I noted in the article, no smartphone platform ships with Flash, and I believe you can only install FlashLite on a few older OS models. So Apple gets grief, but it seems to be a function of the device scale, not iPods.

    The iPad has a substantially faster processor and bigger battery, so you'd think if it was entirely about the processor/battery ratio, Apple could have a "Flash on/off" switch just like is has switches for other kinds of behavior.
  • Color me cynical, but I've long suspected that Apple's anti-Flash stance may be due to some desire to develop a competing tool of their own.
  • That doesn't seem cynical to me one bit. And I can't claim to be tuned in to insider info at Apple (although no one is), but I have never heard of Apple considering making such a tool--as it would require cross-browser, cross-platform support to have any impact. You can't build a Web plug-in that doesn't support Internet Explorer 8, and Apple wouldn't do that; and you can't make a Safari-only plug-in that you could expect anyone to develop against.

    That said, I would argue it's all about control of the platform. As John Gruber at Daring Fireball has written a number of times lately from different angles, Apple has top-to-bottom control of nearly all the code in iPhone OS, either by owning it directly or it being open-source projects Apple can modify for its own purposes. Flash would be the big and notable exception.
  • I suppose I'm just used to thinking of myself as cynical when I discuss these things, in assuming that everyone has a 5-year (or longer) agenda in these development cycles.

    Gruber's got some good points, but Apple with the iPhone control and the non-stop AT&T negativity are painting themselves into a corner. The current app store and the remaining "cool" factor of the phone are driving them, but it's only a matter of time until more and more polished Androids keep nicking away at them.

    I could be wrong, but Apple will need to either cede access to the various Flash experiences (and other current and future restricted things) that are so popular, or else move away from AT&T and open themselves to sales on many other providers. Eventually, they'll reach terminal mass on AT&T's base and have to do this anyway, to keep driving new phone sales at rates that Wall Street expects. It's just a question I think if they can do this before Android steals too much thunder. Simple phone upgrades in size, RAM, CPU, or whatever else will only carry you so far.

    Like me--I'm due to expire off of Sprint again, and have been with them for literally 12 years. I was ready to take myself and my wife to AT&T in September for an iPhone, until I saw the HTC Hero for Sprint and the overwhelmingly fantastic reviews it got. The no-Flash thing is minor for me, but an open app store without all the other arbitrary control limits? Tough.
blog comments powered by Disqus