tech support 8

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, 12 April 2010

Adobe vs. Apple or Flash vs. HTML5

Posted on 14:40 by Unknown

Any of you watching the recent iPad coverage may already know that the iPad not only does not support Flash, there is no intention on the part of Apple to support Flash. Granted, the iPhone doesn't support Flash, but neither do most other mobile devices. iPhone users had been complaining about this for a while and Apple cited its policy toward acceptance of software from third-party manufacturers as a reason not to expect it ("Why Apple Won't Allow Adobe Flash on iPhone," Wired, Nov. 17, 2008).

With Apple's pitch that the iPad would replace netbooks and slide into the average user's hands as the de facto web surfing platform, hopes were high that the iPad would support Flash. The original iPad promos even showed Flash in use, but those were quietly changed without any acknowledgment from Apple ("Apple Pulls Flash Content From iPad Promos," PCWorld, Jan. 30, 2010).

In the last couple weeks things have heated up even more. Apple modified its iPhone Developer Program License Agreement (part of the iPhone OS SDK) to expand on a section covering how external applications can be developed:

3.3.1 Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++ or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++ and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

While Flash Player 10.1 is now available (or on its way) for other mobile devices (Android, Symbian, Windows Mobile, webOS and BlackBerry), the iPhone is still not having it. This new language essentially blocks a utility Adobe created to allow Flash developers to convert their Flash projects to the iPhone app format. And that utility still didn't bring Flash support to Safari on the iPhone ("Adobe Announces Flash Support for iPhone (But Only for Apps)," Mashable, Oct. 5, 2009). On the bright side, Adobe is also planning to support exporting to the HTML5 canvas element.

Apple has been quick to point out that anything you can do in Flash can be done in HTML5. Not only is this patently not true (primarily because HTML5 isn't even a finished spec yet — see "Too Soon to Advocate HTML5?" at this blog), the Safari browser doesn't support it all (CSS3 and HTML5 support checklist). Given how many sites use Flash for even basic features like non-critical content or add-on features, the average web surfer on his or her iPhone/iPad will just see blank areas where Flash should appear. Apple is free to limit its support at no cost to itself, but if companies truly want their Flash-specific features to work on an iPhone or iPad, they now have to consider not only how they might technically do that, but how much they are willing to spend to achieve it.

If you've known me or read my posts for long enough, you know I have generally considered Flash to be a usability and accessibility nightmare, primarily because Flash developers have often abandoned best practices and made up their own rules for interaction. And I'll just gloss over search engines by only mentioning them in this sentence, because that's just low-hanging fruit for an anti-Flash rant. But while Flash may not be my ideal method to build things, it's also a de facto standard for many aspects of current web design — animated objects, integrated video, interactivity. Yes, much of this can be done using HTML and JavaScript, but the Flash development environment allows many companies to develop features for their sites at a relatively inexpensive cost and not worry about cross-browser scripting issues.

A handful of companies are already re-orienting their sites or at least their strategies, but these are companies who know they have to target iPhone and iPad users ("Virgin America Ditches Adobe Flash for New Site" at Mashable, March 3, 2010). They are also companies who have the budget to do it. For the rest of us, the best thing we can do is continue to watch the battle between Adobe and Apple and see where it goes. I predict no winner. However, I do see the losers in this battle — end users and smaller organizations who cannot afford a rebuild.

Related News

  • "Apple v Adobe: this time it's executable" at The Guardian, April 9, 2010.
  • "Adobe CTO Defends Flash Against Apple, HTML5" at Webmonkey, February 2, 2010.
  • "Adobe CEO: Apple 'hurts customers'" at MacDailyNews, April 14, 2010.
  • "Adobe vs Apple: Flash of the Titans" at Mac Observer, April 14, 2010.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in Adobe, Apple, browser, Flash, html, mobile, Safari, usability | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Social Media Day 2011 in Buffalo #smdayBUF
    Last night marked the second Mashable-sponsored Social Media Day here in Buffalo. With 154 RSVPs for the event, the venue, The Eights Bist...
  • Web Accessibility Sorta-Infographic
    WebAIM is a non-profit organization within the Center for Persons with Disabilities at Utah State University. It has a reputation (perhaps o...
  • Now the Mobile Web Is Dead?
    It was barely two years ago that I scoffed when Wired declared the web dead ( Enough about the Death of the Web ). Fast forward to today and...
  • Browser Performance Chart
    Jacob Gube has posted a handy chart over at Six Revisions titled " Performance Comparison of Major Web Browsers ." He tests the c...
  • Facebook, HTML5, and Mis-Reporting
    My Twitter stream and the headlines of sites across the web yesterday lit up with Facebook's CEO blaming its stock price (failure to mee...
  • The Science of Trust in Social Media
    I am one of those people who always needs to see proof of some assertion, evidence to back up a claim. While I can accept anecdotal evidence...
  • ICANN Moves .org Away from VeriSign
    This Saturday, the .org top-level domain (TLD) will no longer be privately managed. With VeriSign's contract with ICANN for management ...
  • Speaking at Mom 2.0 in Houston, TX
    I will be in Houston this week to speak at the Mom 2.0 Summit (Feb. 18-20, 2010, Houston, TX). To make it a little easier to describe, here...
  • Algonquin Studios Gets Local Press
    I'm taking an opportunity to brag a little about my company, Algonquin Studios , being featured today in the Business section of our lo...
  • App Store Meta Tags
    Why yes, Dominos, I'd love to tap again to get your real home page to order a pizza when I could have done it right here, below your ove...

Categories

  • accessibility
  • Adobe
  • analytics
  • Apple
  • apps
  • ARIA
  • Bing
  • Blink
  • Brightkite
  • browser
  • Buzz
  • Chrome
  • clients
  • css
  • design
  • Facebook
  • Firefox
  • Flash
  • fonts
  • food
  • Foursquare
  • g11n
  • geolocation
  • globalization
  • Google
  • Gowalla
  • html
  • i18n
  • ICANN
  • infographic
  • Instagram
  • internationalization
  • internet
  • Internet Explorer
  • JavaScript
  • JAWS
  • Klout
  • L10n
  • law
  • localization
  • Lynx
  • Mapquest
  • Microsoft
  • mobile
  • Netscape
  • ning
  • Opera
  • patents
  • picplz
  • Plus
  • print
  • privacy
  • project management
  • QR
  • rant
  • RSS
  • Safari
  • SCVNGR
  • search
  • SEM
  • SEO
  • social media
  • Sony
  • speaking
  • standards
  • SVG
  • touch
  • translation
  • Twitter
  • typefaces
  • usability
  • UX
  • Verizon
  • video
  • W3C
  • WAI
  • WCAG
  • WebKit
  • whatwg
  • Wired
  • WOFF
  • xhtml
  • Yahoo
  • YouTube

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (39)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2012 (63)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (7)
  • ►  2011 (67)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (8)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ▼  2010 (100)
    • ►  December (8)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (7)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (12)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ▼  April (8)
      • State of Web Dev Survey Results
      • W3C Testifies on Web Accessibility to US House
      • Adobe to Drop iPhone Support, Target Android
      • Library of Congress Archives Tweets
      • Opera and Chrome on the Rise
      • Adobe vs. Apple or Flash vs. HTML5
      • Your Site Speed to Affect Its Google Rank
      • Mapping Location-Based Social Media
    • ►  March (10)
    • ►  February (5)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2009 (51)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (2)
  • ►  2003 (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2002 (9)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2001 (1)
    • ►  February (1)
  • ►  2000 (4)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  1999 (7)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile