4 ms·

I found it interesting they used Flash- it seems like all their features could have been done using JavaScript. While Flash almost certainly works better in th

I found it interesting they used Flash- it seems like all their features could have been done using JavaScript. While Flash almost certainly works better in this situation, I wonder how it affects their odds of an acquisition. Is "increasing chances of acquisition" important or talked about at YC? Scribd uses Flash (and their document viewer looks a lot like Scribd, another YC company- is it the same code, or just a homage?), however it seems to me the features would be more at home at Google Docs or Zoho. Either way, awesome startup- it was incredibly easy to use, and did exactly what it said it would. Well done, and congrats!

MartinMond 17y ago
I think it boils down to one question: When given the chance, would you go for the no-Flash JS tool? I guess they decided people don't actually despise Flash that much.
arnorhs 17y ago
Well, rendering complex PDF files through html/javascript is considerably more difficult than using, what I presume to be, native adobe library in flash to read and edit PDF documents. At least with PDF files. That's what I tried, and the rendering is flawless. I haven't seen a PDF -> HTML/JS conversion that actually produces usable results, yet.
- mattlong 17y ago
  I'm a developer with Crocodoc. We can get very high fidelity document rendering using Flash. We tried out a few PDF -> HTML converters and none of them offered the level of fidelity and accuracy that we were looking for.
benologist 17y ago
"how it affects their odds of an acquisition" My guess is it'll affect it as much as their decision to use a gif for their logo instead of a png.
- sunchild 17y ago
  I disagree. A Flash-based presentation layer is a liability, since it's vendor-locked.
  - benologist 17y ago
    Almost everybody is building on a platform they don't really control. Notables include Facebook, iPhone, Windows, OSX, .NET, Wii, XBox, PlayStation ... even open source is only technically under your control since it's out of the question for most people to maintain and continue developing whatever they use in a worst-case scenario.
    - sunchild 17y ago
      That's silly: if it's an open standard, I can migrate off of it. If it's a single-vendor closed alternative to open web protocols, I'd be worried. Now that at least one very popular browser has no Flash support, I'd also worry about that.
      - benologist 17y ago
        You can migrate off a closed platform as well. There's nothing to stop them moving to an open technology or another closed technology or not moving at all in the future, as long as their needs are met. And you're looking at just one little layer of the vendor lock in, whether open or closed platforms you can be tied to a number of different vendors.

MartinMond 17y ago

I think it boils down to one question: When given the chance, would you go for the no-Flash JS tool? I guess they decided people don't actually despise Flash that much.

arnorhs 17y ago

Well, rendering complex PDF files through html/javascript is considerably more difficult than using, what I presume to be, native adobe library in flash to read and edit PDF documents. At least with PDF files. That's what I tried, and the rendering is flawless. I haven't seen a PDF -> HTML/JS conversion that actually produces usable results, yet.

mattlong 17y ago
I'm a developer with Crocodoc. We can get very high fidelity document rendering using Flash. We tried out a few PDF -> HTML converters and none of them offered the level of fidelity and accuracy that we were looking for.

benologist 17y ago

"how it affects their odds of an acquisition" My guess is it'll affect it as much as their decision to use a gif for their logo instead of a png.

sunchild 17y ago
I disagree. A Flash-based presentation layer is a liability, since it's vendor-locked.
- benologist 17y ago
  Almost everybody is building on a platform they don't really control. Notables include Facebook, iPhone, Windows, OSX, .NET, Wii, XBox, PlayStation ... even open source is only technically under your control since it's out of the question for most people to maintain and continue developing whatever they use in a worst-case scenario.
  - sunchild 17y ago
    That's silly: if it's an open standard, I can migrate off of it. If it's a single-vendor closed alternative to open web protocols, I'd be worried. Now that at least one very popular browser has no Flash support, I'd also worry about that.
    - benologist 17y ago
      You can migrate off a closed platform as well. There's nothing to stop them moving to an open technology or another closed technology or not moving at all in the future, as long as their needs are met. And you're looking at just one little layer of the vendor lock in, whether open or closed platforms you can be tied to a number of different vendors.