[avar]

I don't own an iPad but I think Apple's non-support of Flash is great. It's shipping the first major web browser in the last decade that's explicitly not supporting flash.

So it's helping to make Flash more irrelevant every day, by forcing developers to finally consider that delivering their content in some executable binary blob isn't a reasonable thing to do on the web.

Thanks, Apple!

[jfno67]

The point Dave makes in the original post, is that he sees new flash content being produced, so the boycott is not working. I think it is more productive to focus on promoting html5 to make flash irrelevant.

[avar]

Of course sites are still going to produce content in Flash, but nowadays they at least have to consider that by doing so they're making it impossible for an ever increasing market segment to view their content.

I ran Debian on a PPC machine a few years ago so I couldn't use Flash. Back then only very odd setups like that didn't have it. Nowadays millions of people are buying new top of the line devices that don't support it, so the tide is turning as a result.

[nanairo]

I think both systems together would probably work best. Because---and here I link to the original article---the fight is far from over.

If Flash will eventually disappear it will be slowly, very slowly. Companies are reluctant to get into new technologies. Has DVD disappeared because of Blu-ray? Has Windows XP disappeared because of Windows 7? What about Internet Explorer? And it's the same outside of the tech industry too.

Some sites will be early adopters, some will be slowpokes and most will be somewhere in the middle. And in this last year we've seen a _lot_ of mindshare being gained by HTML5. For a start Youtube, Vimeo and friends. Let's remember that a couple of years ago Flash was basically had the whole market by itself.

I don't know if the iPad/iPod helped, but I do know that Flash is starting to lose its grip. And yes, of course people will still develop on Flash for many years to come, the same way some companies were still selling VHS players a couple of years ago. But the adoption is gaining steam.

[napierzaza]

There's a lot of people who know flash and don't know HTML5 and not to mention HTML probably having some shortcomings.

So there's going to be stuff done in flash to appease the designs of sites. But once HTML is more mature, and people know how to use it, they're not going to do the work twice anymore.

Make no mistake, having a major platform like the iPhone/iPad is pushing that forward. It's hard to tell how or when this will turn out.

[apu]

And making custom binaries for Apple products only is better?

[astrodust]

Making custom binaries for any device is better, Android, W7 or otherwise. A native application is always able to outperform a generic substitute.

Apple's non-support of Flash has forced content developers to put down their favorite hammer and explore other tools. It also forces content developers to port their applications and consider the format of the target device.

Microsoft has their XNA platform for Windows Phone 7, and I think that's a great thing, too, as it has been proven on the 360. You won't see direct ports from 360 to phone, it's too wildly different, but it makes developing easier. They're looking for high-quality native applications just like Apple.

If Windows Phone 7 supported Flash you'd just see thousands of trashy Flash games and most would barely work. The user experience would be terrible and people would get the impression that either the phone is slow or the apps are bad and not worth buying, either of which is a very bad outcome.

Like it or not, the walled garden approach is necessary to have some degree of control over the user experience. Other vendors will discover this if they care.

[drivebyacct2]

Browsers don't support flash, the Flash plugin for a browser supports flash. It's not about the browser, it's about the platform or the operating system.

A Flash SWF is not an executable binary blob. Many parts of the SWF spec are even open.

[schultzor]

Does the openness of the spec even matter when effectively only one party can write and ship a usable plugin for it?

[beej71]

I think so. It's important because people theoretically can write plugins for it.

Writing a Flash player is a lot of work, and there's not much reason to do so if Adobe has most computers covered already.

[drivebyacct2]

Gnash, swfdec, lightspark, scaleform, smokescreen and others that I'm forgetting are making progress. Most of them are highly compatible with the simple image and video use cases that dominate well over 95% (at least of my) use of flash.

[protomyth]

A third-party cannot ship a flash plugin that supports Hulu. Not working 5% of the time causes nasty support issues.

[astrodust]

If by "open" you mean "approximately documented" then yes, it's open. There's a whole mountain of stuff you have to do to even meet part of the spec, and there's a lot left up to interpretation.

It's easier to write a fully HTML5 compliant web browser than it is to write a fully compliant Flash plugin.