So many things are wrong with this rant. 1. "You don’t have to follow convention anymore." Generally, convention makes it easier for visitors to figure out the

So many things are wrong with this rant. 1. "You don’t have to follow convention anymore." Generally, convention makes it easier for visitors to figure out the website and get how to interact with it. The prototypical example is having links in blue with an underline. Form elements that look like other forms' elements are also important. 2. Innovation: Flash is a tool that has created a lot of innovation, yes, but so has Javascript. I'd argue projects like jQuery are promoting innovation much better: it's Javascript that runs on pretty much any browser without the need of a CPU-sucking plugin. 3. Rain City bikes: the author needs to brush up on SEO. Firstly, the page has quite a bit of content that is NOT flash, as cached by Google ( see http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:ggNvi1Rjd3UJ:www.raincitybikes.com/+Dutch+Bikes&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:ggNvi1Rjd3UJ:www.raincity... ). Secondly, the anchor text of a page will make it rank higher for queries that match the anchor text; this is regardless of the contents of the page. The extreme examples of this are called Google Bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb . For Rain City, this query shows you how much the anchor text is helping them: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=allinanchor%3ADutch+Bikes http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=allinanchor%3ADutch+Bikes . In short: nothing in the post is really arguing why Flash doesn't suck.