4 ms·

I work appsec for a company that provides a (primarily) flash-based web platform - Apache Flex, specifically. What people don't realize is the extreme cost of p

I work appsec for a company that provides a (primarily) flash-based web platform - Apache Flex, specifically. What people don't realize is the extreme cost of porting things like this to HTML5. We have nearly 1M lines of ActionScript. The browser makers and Adobe are aware of deployments like us, and that's why they can't just pull the plug. We don't need a few months to fix this problem, we need years.

dcousens 10y ago
How does a code base become so cumbersome, without someone signalling that there will be a price to pay?
- jasonlotito 10y ago
  It doesn't. Someone always signals there will be a price to pay. The thing is, the price is not high enough when compared to the profit you gain by continuing down the road you are on now.
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    Further to this, a lot of enterprise-type companies I've worked at who have web applications, but their primary business isn't tech, just don't seem to understand software maintanence, and as such won't put a budget towards it. Instead they'll just completely replace it X years later for Y times more than the maintenance would have cost.
- sullivanmatt 10y ago
  Well, the codebase existed long before HTML5 was supported by pretty much any major browser (remember, HTML5 didn't really stabilize to the point an enterprise could use it until 2012). So you have to continue adding to it while you wait for HTML5, and its popular frameworks and libraries, to come to fruition. Oh, and we're an enterprise SaaS app, so all of our customers run on whatever version of IE was released 4 years ago.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    If all your customers are enterprise and running from within that environment only, would they not be able to enforce a group policy where flash can only run for specific domain names?
njovin 10y ago
Is your company actively working on a replacement? I've felt like Flash has been "on it's way out" for the better part of three years. It seems to me that your company has had the years it needs to make the change and has chosen not to do so.
- sullivanmatt 10y ago
  Yes, and we have been for a while. But as you can imagine, you can't stop adding features to your existing product and expect to survive. 1M lines of code isn't something you can port quickly.
  - tukelully 10y ago
    Is there some sort of process in place for mitigating the potential "1 step forward, 2 steps back" path of adding features in ActionScript and then having to eventually port them?
    - sullivanmatt 10y ago
      Where we could, we certainly tried to avoid it. The bigger problem is just the opportunity cost with regards to resources involved with the transition.
      - tukelully 10y ago
        Which is a large cost no question. Especially with the size of the codebase you mentioned. What I'm interested in is how, if at all, the transition process is managed. YouTube's transition from Flash might be an example of this. They managed it by creating an opt in sort of beta experience that they tested for a long time before making it the default. Another thing I'd be curious about is the line at which the opportunity cost of not making the transition surpasses the cost of not developing new Flash features.
        dispose13432 10y ago
tinus_hn 10y ago
Why would Adobe keep investing money in your problem? When there no longer is a revenue stream that funds updates there will be no more updates. If you need years to transition off Flash you should have started years ago and if you haven't yet, you have a very big problem on your hands. And if you think Adobe cares about that you are mistaken. They don't care unless they can make money out of it. They are not a charity.
- prawn 10y ago
  At least in part because you sacrifice some good will with those customers and others around them. Look at the response on HN when Google announce a new product, and people are skeptical that they will keep it alive long enough to build around.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Which is precisely what Microsoft did with a raft of technologies that were actually quite good. WPF, SilverLight and WCF all come to mind, and are all reasons why I won't adopt a new Microsoft framework in future.
  - gaius 10y ago
    Or Apple with OpenDoc and a whole heap of others.
- datalog 10y ago
  To echo the answers of others: It's bad for their reputation and it impacts the business of the future. I'm currently involved with a business transitioning their content from Flash to HTML5 and they are adamant about completely removing any Adobe software from the stack. This means that they won't be using the HTML5 backend of Adobe Animate (formerly Adobe Flash Pro) out of principle, even though in this case it would be acceptable to keep it around as an authoring tool. By the way, the same is true for any Google software, they won't be using (for instance) Google Web Designer because of Google's extremely poor track record of supporting software in the long run.
sheraz 10y ago
This. This 1000x. I have a client who is a mid-sized enterprise SaaS provider, and their moneymaker is a large flex app that talks to a legacy backend. We are currently shoring up this old app while simultaneously building a new, modern in from scratch. It is a constant battle of bug fixes on the old and implementation and new features in both platforms as we try to transition customers off. I do wish the actionscript and flex ecosystems were still thriving because we could use the help. I imagine other enterprises are in the same place.
- junto 10y ago
  These kind of scenarios are key. People forget that companies have invested millions of dollars into systems based on this technology. In the early 2000's I worked for an e-learning company. All of their courses were interactive, popular with large corporations and trained employees from fire safety, to compliance to business processes. It had user testing built in and in order to deliver the interactivity and keep it interesting, Flash was the perfect tool. It has great hooks that you could use JavaScript to get data and out, and interface with backbend databases/scripts and of the shelf e-learning management systems. Much of those e-learning courses are still being used today. Most of the content is still relevant today. It makes no sense to throw it away. It is companies like these and those of the parent poster, that are the key reason why Adobe cannot simply pull the kill switch
agentgt 10y ago
It is the same story with Java Swing apps. Sure they are hideous and can be slow if poorly coded but man once they worked they worked reliable well and porting becomes this sunken cost that you never finish and just abandon. The real story for Java and Flash is not having to worry about browser compatibility something I think many think has gone away with webkit but the reality is it is still here and worse than ever (mobile, firefox, ms edge).

dcousens 10y ago

How does a code base become so cumbersome, without someone signalling that there will be a price to pay?

jasonlotito 10y ago
It doesn't. Someone always signals there will be a price to pay. The thing is, the price is not high enough when compared to the profit you gain by continuing down the road you are on now.
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  Further to this, a lot of enterprise-type companies I've worked at who have web applications, but their primary business isn't tech, just don't seem to understand software maintanence, and as such won't put a budget towards it. Instead they'll just completely replace it X years later for Y times more than the maintenance would have cost.
sullivanmatt 10y ago
Well, the codebase existed long before HTML5 was supported by pretty much any major browser (remember, HTML5 didn't really stabilize to the point an enterprise could use it until 2012). So you have to continue adding to it while you wait for HTML5, and its popular frameworks and libraries, to come to fruition. Oh, and we're an enterprise SaaS app, so all of our customers run on whatever version of IE was released 4 years ago.
- mistermann 10y ago
  If all your customers are enterprise and running from within that environment only, would they not be able to enforce a group policy where flash can only run for specific domain names?

njovin 10y ago

Is your company actively working on a replacement? I've felt like Flash has been "on it's way out" for the better part of three years. It seems to me that your company has had the years it needs to make the change and has chosen not to do so.

sullivanmatt 10y ago
Yes, and we have been for a while. But as you can imagine, you can't stop adding features to your existing product and expect to survive. 1M lines of code isn't something you can port quickly.
- tukelully 10y ago
  Is there some sort of process in place for mitigating the potential "1 step forward, 2 steps back" path of adding features in ActionScript and then having to eventually port them?
  - sullivanmatt 10y ago
    Where we could, we certainly tried to avoid it. The bigger problem is just the opportunity cost with regards to resources involved with the transition.
    - tukelully 10y ago
      Which is a large cost no question. Especially with the size of the codebase you mentioned. What I'm interested in is how, if at all, the transition process is managed. YouTube's transition from Flash might be an example of this. They managed it by creating an opt in sort of beta experience that they tested for a long time before making it the default. Another thing I'd be curious about is the line at which the opportunity cost of not making the transition surpasses the cost of not developing new Flash features.
      - dispose13432 10y ago

tinus_hn 10y ago

Why would Adobe keep investing money in your problem? When there no longer is a revenue stream that funds updates there will be no more updates. If you need years to transition off Flash you should have started years ago and if you haven't yet, you have a very big problem on your hands. And if you think Adobe cares about that you are mistaken. They don't care unless they can make money out of it. They are not a charity.

prawn 10y ago
At least in part because you sacrifice some good will with those customers and others around them. Look at the response on HN when Google announce a new product, and people are skeptical that they will keep it alive long enough to build around.
chris_wot 10y ago
Which is precisely what Microsoft did with a raft of technologies that were actually quite good. WPF, SilverLight and WCF all come to mind, and are all reasons why I won't adopt a new Microsoft framework in future.
- gaius 10y ago
  Or Apple with OpenDoc and a whole heap of others.
datalog 10y ago
To echo the answers of others: It's bad for their reputation and it impacts the business of the future. I'm currently involved with a business transitioning their content from Flash to HTML5 and they are adamant about completely removing any Adobe software from the stack. This means that they won't be using the HTML5 backend of Adobe Animate (formerly Adobe Flash Pro) out of principle, even though in this case it would be acceptable to keep it around as an authoring tool. By the way, the same is true for any Google software, they won't be using (for instance) Google Web Designer because of Google's extremely poor track record of supporting software in the long run.

sheraz 10y ago

This. This 1000x. I have a client who is a mid-sized enterprise SaaS provider, and their moneymaker is a large flex app that talks to a legacy backend. We are currently shoring up this old app while simultaneously building a new, modern in from scratch. It is a constant battle of bug fixes on the old and implementation and new features in both platforms as we try to transition customers off. I do wish the actionscript and flex ecosystems were still thriving because we could use the help. I imagine other enterprises are in the same place.

junto 10y ago
These kind of scenarios are key. People forget that companies have invested millions of dollars into systems based on this technology. In the early 2000's I worked for an e-learning company. All of their courses were interactive, popular with large corporations and trained employees from fire safety, to compliance to business processes. It had user testing built in and in order to deliver the interactivity and keep it interesting, Flash was the perfect tool. It has great hooks that you could use JavaScript to get data and out, and interface with backbend databases/scripts and of the shelf e-learning management systems. Much of those e-learning courses are still being used today. Most of the content is still relevant today. It makes no sense to throw it away. It is companies like these and those of the parent poster, that are the key reason why Adobe cannot simply pull the kill switch

agentgt 10y ago

It is the same story with Java Swing apps. Sure they are hideous and can be slow if poorly coded but man once they worked they worked reliable well and porting becomes this sunken cost that you never finish and just abandon. The real story for Java and Flash is not having to worry about browser compatibility something I think many think has gone away with webkit but the reality is it is still here and worse than ever (mobile, firefox, ms edge).