Comments on: The Real Reasons Behind the Flash Debate

By: Fletch

Fletch — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:27:34 +0000

I can understand why Flash-skilled people would be passionate about this subject. But the HTML people… why do they care so much? A certain amount of Flash is obviously going to be replaced on the web and a certain amount will continue to exist. What will the ratio be – if you’re not already invested in Flash, who cares?

We’re evaluating RIA technologies in my company and came to the conclusion that the toolset available for Flex development (i.e. Flash Builder 4) is just so much nicer to use than what there currently is for HTML5 and that is a very important factor if you’re developing apps that don’t need SEO and where you can tell the client to install the Flash player.

I suppose Flash-builder-like toolsets will become available over the coming years for HTML5 RIA development so this will change in time.

By the way do you know that before Hitler’s death, looking at the impending the loss of WW2, the Nazis formulated plans to conquer Europe via peaceful means? I find it rather interesting.

By: Sébastien

Sébastien — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:11:09 +0000

Bad news. If everything that is possible in Flash today is possible in HTML5 tomorrow, and if HTML5 does replace Flash to some extent, then you will see plenty of HTML5 advertisements instead. And it will be even harder to filter them out because you won’t be able to disable a plugin just for that.

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:48:51 +0000

I’m no developer. I’m not a web designer. Nor do I pretend to know anything about any of it. But one thing I do know is that as a regular web user I’m tired of seeing annoying flash advertisements. I blame adobe.

By: RogerV

RogerV — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:06:10 +0000

Problem with Microsoft’s WPF, Mono on Linux and Mac not withstanding, is that it’s not perceived as a cross-platform GUI. Most IT folks view it as a Windows-only solution.

Interestingly, at our company, we do have cases where we build dedicated Windows desktop apps for certain situations, and we’ve used the Expression Blend tool and WPF for that.

I have to say, it’s a great design tool and WPF can indeed deliver excellent looking UIs. The integration of what our designer does and what the developer does works very well in Microsoft’s tooling for work-flow when building WPF apps.

None-the-less, Flex and AIR are our mainstream solutions because by and large we want our most strategic software to be built with excellent UIs and also be more platform neutral (plus we really prefer a Java-centric stack of BlazeDS/SpringFramework/iBATIS/ActiveMQ for our middle-tier).

By: Giorgio Malagutti

Giorgio Malagutti — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:47:48 +0000

@RogerV Definitely Flash on the web is still being perceived as a plugin for small panels and not a general Web Application solution.
I agree with you, but look at what’s happening in the Windows world: WPF is been around for 2 years now, it would allow to create rich interfaces and very few use it. Either the developers are lazy or we all got accustomed to the Apple interfaces that are sober and minimal.

By: RogerV

RogerV — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:13:04 +0000

A current irony is that because Flex and AIR are predominating in enterprise app development, these enterprise apps are surpassing in quality and user experience the public-facing Internet web sites that are being built in limiting HTML/JavaScript/DOM.

In the old days enterprise apps were always stodgy relative to consumer-oriented applications. With Flex and AIR RIA, no more.

The mass consumer-oriented web sites are mostly built in the single paradigm of the browser web app using HTML, et al.

Enterprise apps are being built in superior technology of the RIA platforms. Now most of the mass public is stuck using sites like Facebook, which is just a horrible user experience relative to RIA user interfaces.

It’s a surprising reversal for sure. Yet in IT circles that are doing enterprise app development, there is a premium being placed on cost-effectiveness of the development platform relative to the quality of the results achieved. The RIA technologies are much more cost effective for what you get out as an end result. The leverage is rather extraordinary.

By: Giorgio Malagutti

Giorgio Malagutti — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:16:09 +0000

Sébastien, what Apple does today is what you would expect from Apple. They strive for quality and this obliges them to keep the prices higher and to keep their products more isolated. I don’t blame them for it, it’s their DNA and in the past they paid a very high price for it: they remained marginal for 10 years. Now that this policy finally paid off you ask them to change attitude. Of course they won’t and although I don’t think that this is beneficial to Apple, this IS Apple and iPhone and the App Store are there exactly because they have this philosophy. Otherwise you would have another Windows Mobile like phone out there.
They created iPhone from scratch, gave a tremendous impulse to the industry, we should thank them for it because they raised the bar and shown the way to a better user experience.
As for openness, soon it will be possible to write iPhone apps using Flash or other languages and I am looking forward to it. Also, there will be other phones quite as good as iPhone and more open, we start to see them. Their moment of glory can last for 2-3 years, not more.
IMHO the developers should not attack Apple for being a closed system, they should rather attack Apple for forcing Objective C on us, as if in the Windows world you could only develop native applications using C++. This attitude frankly does not belong to this century.
About large web apps I must agree with you that it is possible to write them in Flash/Flex/Air, but ActionScript is not Java nor C# not to mention the IDEs. The fact that the debate about C# 4 and Java 7 is steaming hot and very few discuss the future of ActionScript speaks for itself.

By: Sébastien

Sébastien — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:38:37 +0000

Giorgio, I don’t quite agree with you about Flash not being fit for big apps. About GMail-like apps, there use to be Zimbra, but it seems they moved to HTML/AJAX after OpenLaszlo made it possible to compile an OpenLaszlo application into DHTML in addition to Flash. But it shows that it is possible. Parleys is another goog example of a pretty big app written entirely in Flex. And I’m not even talking about the hundreds of mission critical Flex applications built on top of SAP, Salesforce and other enterprise backends.

My whole point is that we, as developers should be given a choice to use whatever technology suits our end-users and fits with THEIR constraints, and we shouldn’t let Apple or any other company tell us what I can or cannot do. And so far, the only ones who have been doing real efforts to make sure their technology is available on all possible platforms is Adobe, whatever what the popular belief says. And the news prove me right: AIR on Android. What do you think would happen to App Store business if that became possible on the iPod/iPad?

By: Sébastien

Sébastien — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:22:05 +0000

I get your point Darren, but then I’m back with my original point. Apple managed to collaborate with Microsoft to port Office to the Mac. They managed to collaborate with Google on the iPhone and several Mac apps. Why is it that they refuse to collaborate with Adobe to fix those integration issues? Why is it that they’re trying to make Adobe look bad, if not so that they can protect their iTunes walled garden? Adobe has allowed Apple to sell millions of Macs thanks to their creative suite. I’m even convinced Adobe is the reason Apple didn’t go bankrupt when Steve was gone. How did it come to the point when those two are not able to communicate and figure out their own issues?

By: Sébastien

Sébastien — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:17:05 +0000

I’m calling you an amateur because you sound like one when you bash a technology you obviously know nothing about, while bragging about using a technology that is less “easy to use”. People who think they are in some kind of crusade with things on their side, and completely forget to consider all the options with the only concern of the best interest of end-users, those people I call them amateurs.