A Timid Defense of Flash
Posted by knorby on May 5, 2010 under Android, Apple, Linux, coding, facebook, firebug, firefox, flash, google, internet, javascript, media, mozilla, rants, video | 
Be the First to Comment
First off, I hate flash. I use linux, and I have a netbook; I know very well how bad it can suck. For reasons beyond my comprehension, flash audio just breaks occasionally on me, including in AIR. On top of that, I have done a lot more web app development in javascript in an attempt to push browsers to their limits than I ever have flash. Aside from Sound Manager 2 (which doesn’t really count), I think the last time I did everything in flash was flash 7, so aside from some side knowledge, I know very little about flash. I really hope HTML5 is successful, but I don’t think it is a direct replacement for flash, no matter how much Steve Jobs bullshits. Here’s why:
Content Control
In the mad rush to move any web video over to flash, a serious point has been overlooked. Youtube may be able to set up backends for HTML5 video formats, but can Hulu? It is possible to save hulu apparently, probably though some strange use of rtmpdump, but from what I could see, those methods were convoluted at best. The question comes down to how something like Hulu, which must have ads on each video to survive, use something other than flash. I know from experience that ad block can stop the streaming of hulu ads, but hulu forces a longer black screen on you otherwise. I haven’t looked into the specifics of what goes on in the whole process, but it is safe to say that it is easier to restrict how content is handled on flash than the standard browser environment. The problem comes down to this: if uncompiled code is sent to clients, the client has the final control on how content is rendered. I wrote up a now broken approach to eliminating some facebook ads with simple css in firefox a while ago, but such approaches have only become more widespread. Site owners are starting to take notice of things like ad block, and some take serious offense. Facebook went as far to send a C&D to a firefox extension that modifies facebook rendering, of course they are pretty evil at this point (I am thinking of deleting my account, but that is a different story). I predict that in the near future, the question of how clients are allowed to modify the rendering of content will become a central issue to many web apps. The simple truth is that a compiled flash swf provides better code security than javascript obfuscation by several magnitude. Both on the front of audio and video and on just general content, flash provides content control that a browser just can’t match.
Standards are Slow to Adapt
If you have been following any of the debate over H.264 vs. Ogg Theora (better format vs. open), something will be apparent: content hosters have a bad deal. Which standard will prevail (probably H.264)? Is it worth doubling the number of videos to accommodate firefox? The questions go on. When flash introduced video, it was simply a matter of “run this version” on all platforms. The thing with browsers is that they are big projects. Chrome, which doesn’t even have the task of maintaining a full rendering engine, suffers from problems already as a result of being too big. I submitted a bug to Chromuim about 6 months ago for an SVG issue in the developer tools; I submitted the same bug to firebug first, and what I have seen says a lot about chromium. The firebug issue was tagged (for triage) on the same day I submitted it, and the fix was in a beta 4 months later. It took 3 months for chromium to do what it took a day for firebug to do (look at it), and all I have seen in about 6 months is a couple extra tags, and a few irrelevant comments. Mozilla is quicker with firefox bugs, but it is also safe to say that chromium has focused more on performance. These stats don’t even consider the number of developers on each, many of which professionally work on firefox and chromium, which can’t be said for firebug. I am not trying to raise questions in how open source development goes, but once HTML5 features lose focus, what will happen with bugs? What will happen when a better video standard exists? You can’t just fix standards; that’s why javascript and css are what they are. There is something to be said for keeping stuff in third party apps.
Maturity
Flash games have a special place. Traditional games don’t fill that niche; mobile games can’t fill that void; the truth is that it will take a while for javascript + canvas to substitute. It is a new technology, and one with interesting potential, but it is new, not mature. You can’t expect normal flash game developers to all of a sudden start writing stuff for the pure browser, especially when it gets harder, not easier. That doesn’t even consider SVG+javascript, which is actually a more near equivalent of flash, and even as that is more widely deployed, I will just say that it is even farther from being in a real production state. I wrote a web app on it, and I encountered, and still encounter, all sorts of weird browser bugs. To keep it short, it isn’t better to develop on an immature standard on 5 different platforms on 3+ different OSs than flash.
Conclusion
I think there are a lot of pros and cons in both directions of Flash vs. HTML5, and I hope and think that HTML5 will take over many of the uses of flash now. I think my defense of flash is rather incomplete, and my love of the browser environment is hardly expressed. Regardless, java, flash, or other plugins have served as the innovators of new approaches for a long while, and there is something to that. I hope third party methods don’t disappear, as I think the web ecosystem will suffer as a result.
I realize this post was mostly a rant, so if you have anything to add, please leave it as a comment, or send something to me.