The thing that isn’t being said in all of this, in every debate I hear of “Plugins vs The Open Web” is the assumption that somehow, because it’s open, it’s somehow better. Better for whom?
Thing is, users, who at the end of the day are the major consumers, don’t give a damn if something is open or not, just that it works, that it’s interesting, that it captivates their attention, that it allows them to do what they have come to expect to be able to do, which is admittedly a floating target.
Developers, on the other hand, have a more complex set of priorities. What makes a technology good or bad for developers IMO is based a lot more on the perception of that technology vs its actual performance than one might think. That perception is fuelled by developers, but also by evangelists and tech pundits who each have their stake in the acceptance of a given technology.
Just look at the FUD generated by Apple recently around the Flash Player: Steve claims, in sum, that Flash is a crappy technology, and despite such assertions being proven utterly false, others believe it because of the trust Apple has built up around is products. Likewise, many Flash developers (of which I count myself) have decided that Apple is now an evil company who is against them, simply because Apple is protecting their platform’s market share from an incumbent.
So I’m not going to talk about which is actually “better,” because it’s a meaningless conversation. Each has its uses.
The problem I have is with the FUD generated over this issue.
In discussing “Flash vs the Open Web,” I’ll never understand why so many otherwise intelligent and tech savvy people go all soft in the head and completely miss the distinction between a language and a runtime.
People talk about the Open Web as if somehow browser makers Google or Mozilla or Apple or Microsoft or Opera are completely “open” about how they develop their own products. That somehow the W3C or ECMA establishes their standards (which browser makers may or may not implement) based on the feedback of a community of open source developers (which they don’t, BTW).
So how is that different from Adobe being the sole director of how the Flash Player is built?
(And yes, like Mozilla, Google, etc., Adobe does actually solicit feedback from industry and developers on what to include — and like Mozilla, Google, etc., they alone decide the direction of the technology.)
So tell me again how the Flash Platform is different from the “Open Web”?
I don’t see it.
Sometimes being open “means not being militant about the things consumers are actually enjoying.”
Amen to that.
Flash isn’t on the iPhone. It isn’t on the iPad, either. And for this, everyone is losing their minds.
Flash haters are coming out of the woodwork proclaiming the death of Flash, eager to feast on the dead flesh of another technological casualty while they bow in fealty to their white shiny god (Apple, dummy! :). Silverlight lovers, usually so vocal against Flash, are conspicuously absent from the debate.
But I think it’s a little premature to announce the demise of Flash. As my estimable colleague Derrick Grigg pointed out, there are so many things that Flash can do that are specialized and unique that no other web technology can do well.
As to the criticisms of the Flash Player: it crashes on OSX, it’s unstable, it’s insecure, it’s a resource hog. All potentially true, on the surface. But like a fixed TV debate subject to concision, 140-character tweets and troll rebuttals cannot give the whole story.
Flash does not work as well as it can on OSX because Apple and Adobe aren’t working well together, for whatever reason. Whether it’s Adobe being lazy in not utilizing Carbon in innovative ways, or Apple will not cooperate with Adobe in helping them develop better integration, I don’t particularly care who’s at fault. And it doesn’t look like it’s going to improve anytime soon. It looks like the two have declared war on that issue.