6 ms·

I think what Flash (the program) really excelled at was giving creators the ability to draw, animate and program interactive objects, all wrapped in a single ne

I think what Flash (the program) really excelled at was giving creators the ability to draw, animate and program interactive objects, all wrapped in a single neat package. I would contest that no other software, even today, has come close to being able to do these three so seamlessly at once (Really, I encourage you to try to name one!) Sure, when it came down to it you can say it had poor performance, security, filesize bloat (all things that were fixable or you could work around). But in reality, it allowed for developers to create amazing things in a fraction of the time it would take in any other environment. As for myself, I've moved on to OpenFL and Haxe. It's fast, it's lean, it's cross-platform, it's open source... but it's still not the same.

m-j-fox 9y ago
I think security was not fixable, at-least not to the user's and browsers liking. You had to disable flash for safety and stopping the most annoying ads. The other issues could be left to consenting adults. But browsers and IT departments turned against plugins in general. Now even Java is almost gone (from browsers) for the same reason.
- dyarosla 9y ago
  I think Flash screwed up security because of the way users could control what Flash had access to (through a Security Sandbox Controller on the Macromedia/Adobe website) Imagine that instead Flash went the way of App Permissions: asking users for permission to access, read, and write different things to the browser. Could you imagine? Advertisers wouldn't be able to pull as many annoying/shady things, and security would start to become a non-issue. If anything, Flash gave developers too much freedom at first to tap into the browser. Then they tried to backpedal by adding more sandboxing rules that still connected to their awkward security manager. And so, advertisers contently continued on abusing all the ways they could get their ads to become as intrusive and in your face as possible, and people began to be angry with Flash because of it.
  - lowbloodsugar 9y ago
    Wasn't the problem was zero day exploits in the flash player?
    - dyarosla 9y ago
      Absolutely. There were definitely multiple problems beyond the one I mentioned with security. But I would argue the one you mention is a problem with most complex software connected to the internet. I mean, they did what they could, they'd release patches. You could argue that it's similar to what proprietary browser vendors would have to do if they were exploited.
  - theamk 9y ago
    I don't remember the flash permissions model being problematic. I saw two main problems with flash: - it was a lightweight and compatible way to insert animated ads. The animation consumed a lot of CPU. This is why most people blocked flash, and why most Apple refused to support it on ipads. - it had horrible security record. For some reason, Adobe could not fix the bugs in the Flash plugin. This is why IT departments started to block it. For more details, see this very interesing Steve Job's letter why Flash would never run on i-devices: https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ (note it does not even mention sandboxing model)
    - dyarosla 9y ago
      Apple's main qualm at the time though was "If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers." They've since done a double-take and have accepted games built in Unity and apps built in website-wrapper frameworks (also many of which are proprietary). Apple had many reasons to want to rightfully kill off Flash. But the thing is, it wasn't all bad. Note that I do agree however that slow security fixes and Flash causing crashes / consuming lots of CPU are real concerns.
- theamk 9y ago
  I have a feeling that if Adobe would publish detailed Flash file format specs when Flash started to decline, there would have been separate player implementations and Flash might still be alive today. Of course, this also means alternative editor implementations, and this decreases business value. This is also a lot of work. And at some point, it became too late -- if format would be published today, very few people would care. So I am not surprised Adobe decided to let the Flash die, rather than open it.
  - fenomas 9y ago
    The SWF format has been open since 2008. Here's the current spec (PDF): http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/swf/pdf/swf-file-format-spec.pdf http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/swf/p... (edit: removing a now-obsolete comment wondering why I'd been downvoted)
    - tjalfi 9y ago
      Iggy[0] is a third-party Flash implementation. [0] http://www.radgametools.com/iggy.htm http://www.radgametools.com/iggy.htm
  - robmcm 9y ago
    As state by other commentators it was an open standard. However the main issues other vendors faced were Adobe's control of the standard (no TC39) and the use of patents in the technology (compression etc).
- pjmlp 9y ago
  They will be back, just let WebAssembly mature.
  - j45 9y ago
    Very true. No one has built better tooling since. If webassembly can be the better endpoint..
npgatech 9y ago
Processing, especially the javascript library is ready to go on HTML canvas.
- dyarosla 9y ago
  You can't draw or animate in processing. You can program lines and shapes and animations, but that's hardly comparable.
  - nikofeyn 9y ago
    i know nothing of creating things using flash. can you link a good resource that gets at what you are describing? i am familiar with and have used processing though.
    - dyarosla 9y ago
      You can look up how to videos on youtube for all of drawing, animation and programming in Flash. The drawing and animation tools are much like you would find in any full-fledged, 2D animation software. BUT! You could then add in code to additionally move, animate, interact, or all manner of other things to make any of the kinds of flash content (like games) you see on the web. This is as opposed to what you do nowadays; use one piece of software for drawing, possibly another for animating, then export those images and/or animations to some format, linkit together with a separate language and/or framework, and maintain assets separately of code. Flash pulled all of these things into one, but in a way that allowed for really complex projects to be made.
- rtpg 9y ago
  the thing is that Flash basically gives you "dynamic illustrator". A litany of tools for manipulating images and building animations right in the program, without needing to write a single line of code. And then, on top of that, you can actually.... write code! And it works quite well! Flash is one of the funnest programming environment to use for "interactive art". Straightforward things are almost always straightforward, and it's much easier to WYSIWYG your way through a lot of tedium.
amatecha 9y ago
Well, before Flash was around, there was HyperCard (and in fact ActionScript is derived from HyperTalk, the scripting language used in HyperCard). If you're not familiar, definitely take a look. It's also somewhat of a precursor to the WWW :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard
- dyarosla 9y ago
  I'm sure Flash took many ideas for HyperCard, and HyperCard was definitely ahead of its time in many ways as well. The interesting thing is, the most comparable environment I can think of today to Flash is Scratch, as it is a drawing, animation and programming tool all in one. Of course, as the goals of Scratch mostly lean towards being a kids learn-to-program tool, all three parts are much, much, much simpler.
- Keyframe 9y ago
  Everyone who was around the time MYST came along knows what HyperCard is! :)
  - amatecha 9y ago
    haha, indeed! I remember trying to open the Ages in HyperCard and edit them and/or discover how they worked. Last year, I had the awesome fortune of meeting Rand Miller and got to chat with him a bit about HyperCard and how they used it for Myst. Though, I barely remember what we discussed because I was so excited to meet him, hahaha :'D
- j45 9y ago
  HyperCard, Filemaker Pro, Flash, Access, there were a lot of tools in this space to allow problem solvers to create experiences. I don't think it's about being the first, as much as being relevant to a different audience to achieve their results. Each did that well.
mikewhy 9y ago
Hype[0] is really good at the first two. We had short time to develop an animation for a site and I was shocked at how easy it was to use, integrate, and scale from mobile to desktop. Though I've got nothing to suggest for the interactivity part. [0]: http://tumult.com/hype/ http://tumult.com/hype/
- dyarosla 9y ago
  Cool! It does look like you can hook in javascript in there, so they do have that going for it.
dperfect 9y ago
I got started with Flash when it was still FutureSplash (FutureWave), and I think a lot of the credit we give Flash can be attributed to FutureSplash. It didn't have ActionScript yet, but if I remember correctly, it did have the ability to link visual elements to arbitrary frames within the animation timeline (as well as to other URLs), so it was actually pretty powerful (a bit like HyperCard for the web). I was still in elementary school at the time, but I remember creating original animations that my friends all thought were produced by professional animators (or templates), and it certainly expanded my vision of what could be accomplished with a computer. The fact that you could deliver such rich (and interactive) graphics/animations in such a small package - over a 28.8 kbps modem - was like magic. Keep in mind, this was before streaming video became practical for anyone, and simple things like JavaScript[1] rollover effects on buttons still had questionable browser compatibility. Apart from tiny GIFs[2] (usually flames or "under construction" signs), some random <blink> tags and scores of Java applets trying to make text scroll across the screen, the web was largely devoid of motion. I would argue that FutureSplash was the first technology to show us that the web was capable of delivering high-quality motion graphics (things that looked like video) - i.e., content delivery that would eventually compete with television. Indeed, its successor (Flash) would go on to build off that idea by incorporating streaming video support (responsible for most of the early video content online). Not only was the technology impressive under the surface, but as dyarosla mentions, the animator software struck a unique balance between being powerful and extremely approachable for beginners. That combination continued, for the most part, through Macromedia and Adobe. [1] Strangely enough, I seem to recall a few years later (probably when it was under Macromedia's control) a player was released that could play Flash animations in pure JavaScript (eliminating the need for a plugin). It's interesting to think about how far we've come since then, yet how similar that was to our modern web tech stack, at least in concept. [2] Actually, I don't think they were even animated GIFs as we know them. Client pull and server push animations: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/cgi/ch06_06.html http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/cgi/ch06_06.html
- amatecha 9y ago
  Whoa, nostalgia triggered -- I totally forgot about FutureSplash Animator! Ah man, good times :)
jnbiche 9y ago
> Really, I encourage you to try to name one! The CreateJS suite covers most, if not all, of what Flash could do in JavaScript. In fact, it is the library used by Adobe Animate professional to export Flash programs to HTML5 target. It may not be as user-friendly, but it's as comprehensive.
- ivm 9y ago
  Flash is not just ActionScript 3. The only environment that beats Flash IDE for asset management and editing is Unity3d.
- dyarosla 9y ago
  CreateJS is not an integrated digital art, animation and coding tool. It is a set of programming libraries that can program these things.
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    OK, CreateJS with NanoFL, then. I prefer to work without GUI tools, but they are available if needed. But I readily grant that they are not advanced as the original Flash environment. BTW, to those that downvoted this comment to -2, in HN we generally don't downvote to express disagreement.
neovive 9y ago
I totally agree. My first tech job at a startup, around the time of the dotcom boom, was for an early streaming radio application that used Flash to deliver ads in a local desktop player. Flash was a simple, but empowering, tool. The ubiquity of the Flash player transformed the Internet into a true entertainment platform. Prior to Flash, technologies like RealAudio/Video, Quicktime, and animated gifs were clunky and couldn't compete with traditional media. With Flash came the first high-quality, streaming, web cartoons/animations; web games; and eventually Youtube (after the release of the FLV format). Flash should be recognized as a true innovation that paved the way for the modern web. The modern web stack of JS, HTML5 Video/Audio, SVG has finally caught up, but I don't think we'll ever see such seamless integration and power in one tool (for better or worse).
rsync 9y ago
"Really, I encourage you to try to name one!" HyperCard.
elorant 9y ago
The problem with Flash is that at some point people started using it to build websites. And then all hell broke loose. You had content which couldn't be indexed, broken browser functionality, severe usability issues, big load times (let's not forget that bandwidth wasn't always ample as it is today), security vulnerabilities, and a variety of other issues that made the whole experience pretty lame. So while Flash did indeed offered some unique capabilities in a friendly and frictionless package, it also hurt the web in so many ways.
- andybak 9y ago
  This was the main factor that had developers cheering for Flash's demise. 1000 terrible restaurant websites plus the fear that it might catch on and supplant HTML thus ceding ownership of the web to Adobe.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  This feels a bit like rewriting history, it wasn't for that long that people used flash to write websites. In my recollection there was like a 2 year window when you'd occasionally hit a flash site and groan to yourself. It was google that stopped that when people realized their sites weren't getting listed with SEO. And it seemed to be confined to mainly restaurants for some reason ;) I actually think it didn't hurt the web, it was a massive driver for change, Flash highlighted the lack of functionality in html/js and was part of the reason that forced html to finally get canvas, etc. If you're completely honest with yourself, you'll realise that html/js are still years behind what you can do in Silverlight and Adobe Air. Now it's mobile apps that are forcing the web to carry on evolving and highlight just how backward html/js is. In years time we'll have people saying that phone specific apps were terrible, but in reality, without something to show us the flaws of html/js are, it wouldn't move forward. Personally I'm no fan of the mono-culture of the web, the idea that you can only use one language, either for markup or for programming, should be anathema to all of us and instead it is bizarrely celebrated. I'd far prefer to be using Python or Ruby or whatever than javascript and in reality I think it's probably costing the world billions or trillions in wasted effort as we schlep around with javascript.
  - 9y ago
tomelders 9y ago
Was anything "amazing" every created in Flash? It's obviously subjective, but things that would merit the "amazing" tag for me would be things like, Wikipedia, Google (the Search Engine), Facebook (love it or hate it, it's an awesome success), Google Maps, stuff like that. All I remember from the Flash days, and I was a flash developer bear in mind, was clunky, contentless, CPU hammering folly. None of which I think I miss.
- Macha 9y ago
  YouTube couldn't have started when it did without flash, even if it's moved on to html5 now. Also lots of indie game devs (e.g. team meat of super meat boy or binding of Isaac) got their start there, a lot of the early "upload your flash game here" might have paved the way for getting so many games on the app store model when it got going.
  - tomelders 9y ago
    Had flash not existed, I suspect they would have used another video playback plugin, or rolled their own. I don't think YouTube's success was dependent on Flash. But the ubiquity of Flash certainly didn't hurt.
    - ygra 9y ago
      Imagine YouTube depending on QuickTime, Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, or Java Applets. Flash's user experience was just so much better than those options. I'd guess that YouTube couldn't have had that much success were there not such a ubiquitous (and downright good) plugin.
- andybak 9y ago
  > Was anything "amazing" every created in Flash? Not so many practical tools spring to mind but on the arts and creative side of things most definitely.
- deniska 9y ago
  > Was anything "amazing" every created in Flash? > Google Maps Here you go.
Nekorosu 9y ago
I second that except there was no filesize bloat. The plugin itself was quite heavy but the size of a flash site, banner, game and whatnot was based on amount of binary resources inside (images, sounds, videos). I remember Ad networks limits on flash banner sizes being very strict, less than 15 kBs. This was achievable because of excellent vector graphics capabilities of Flash IDE and plugin.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The problem is that it was hard (read: harder than with regular HTML files) to divide the file into different pages, or to implement progressive downloading, so many sites would download every single asset on the first request.
walterstucco 9y ago
> would contest that no other software, even today, has come close to being able to do these three so seamlessly at once What really made flash better than the rest (and still make it) was the ability to use a familiar interface for creatives (a timeline is a timeline) to to build resolution independent artifacts that they could test on their own, on their personal computers, just by pressing ENTER or frame by frame
rawTruthHurts 9y ago
"Really, I encourage you to try to name one!" Director

m-j-fox 9y ago

I think security was not fixable, at-least not to the user's and browsers liking. You had to disable flash for safety and stopping the most annoying ads. The other issues could be left to consenting adults. But browsers and IT departments turned against plugins in general. Now even Java is almost gone (from browsers) for the same reason.

dyarosla 9y ago
I think Flash screwed up security because of the way users could control what Flash had access to (through a Security Sandbox Controller on the Macromedia/Adobe website) Imagine that instead Flash went the way of App Permissions: asking users for permission to access, read, and write different things to the browser. Could you imagine? Advertisers wouldn't be able to pull as many annoying/shady things, and security would start to become a non-issue. If anything, Flash gave developers too much freedom at first to tap into the browser. Then they tried to backpedal by adding more sandboxing rules that still connected to their awkward security manager. And so, advertisers contently continued on abusing all the ways they could get their ads to become as intrusive and in your face as possible, and people began to be angry with Flash because of it.
- lowbloodsugar 9y ago
  Wasn't the problem was zero day exploits in the flash player?
  - dyarosla 9y ago
    Absolutely. There were definitely multiple problems beyond the one I mentioned with security. But I would argue the one you mention is a problem with most complex software connected to the internet. I mean, they did what they could, they'd release patches. You could argue that it's similar to what proprietary browser vendors would have to do if they were exploited.
- theamk 9y ago
  I don't remember the flash permissions model being problematic. I saw two main problems with flash: - it was a lightweight and compatible way to insert animated ads. The animation consumed a lot of CPU. This is why most people blocked flash, and why most Apple refused to support it on ipads. - it had horrible security record. For some reason, Adobe could not fix the bugs in the Flash plugin. This is why IT departments started to block it. For more details, see this very interesing Steve Job's letter why Flash would never run on i-devices: https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ (note it does not even mention sandboxing model)
  - dyarosla 9y ago
    Apple's main qualm at the time though was "If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers." They've since done a double-take and have accepted games built in Unity and apps built in website-wrapper frameworks (also many of which are proprietary). Apple had many reasons to want to rightfully kill off Flash. But the thing is, it wasn't all bad. Note that I do agree however that slow security fixes and Flash causing crashes / consuming lots of CPU are real concerns.
theamk 9y ago
I have a feeling that if Adobe would publish detailed Flash file format specs when Flash started to decline, there would have been separate player implementations and Flash might still be alive today. Of course, this also means alternative editor implementations, and this decreases business value. This is also a lot of work. And at some point, it became too late -- if format would be published today, very few people would care. So I am not surprised Adobe decided to let the Flash die, rather than open it.
- fenomas 9y ago
  The SWF format has been open since 2008. Here's the current spec (PDF): http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/swf/pdf/swf-file-format-spec.pdf http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/swf/p... (edit: removing a now-obsolete comment wondering why I'd been downvoted)
  - tjalfi 9y ago
    Iggy[0] is a third-party Flash implementation. [0] http://www.radgametools.com/iggy.htm http://www.radgametools.com/iggy.htm
- robmcm 9y ago
  As state by other commentators it was an open standard. However the main issues other vendors faced were Adobe's control of the standard (no TC39) and the use of patents in the technology (compression etc).
pjmlp 9y ago
They will be back, just let WebAssembly mature.
- j45 9y ago
  Very true. No one has built better tooling since. If webassembly can be the better endpoint..

npgatech 9y ago

Processing, especially the javascript library is ready to go on HTML canvas.

dyarosla 9y ago
You can't draw or animate in processing. You can program lines and shapes and animations, but that's hardly comparable.
- nikofeyn 9y ago
  i know nothing of creating things using flash. can you link a good resource that gets at what you are describing? i am familiar with and have used processing though.
  - dyarosla 9y ago
    You can look up how to videos on youtube for all of drawing, animation and programming in Flash. The drawing and animation tools are much like you would find in any full-fledged, 2D animation software. BUT! You could then add in code to additionally move, animate, interact, or all manner of other things to make any of the kinds of flash content (like games) you see on the web. This is as opposed to what you do nowadays; use one piece of software for drawing, possibly another for animating, then export those images and/or animations to some format, linkit together with a separate language and/or framework, and maintain assets separately of code. Flash pulled all of these things into one, but in a way that allowed for really complex projects to be made.
rtpg 9y ago
the thing is that Flash basically gives you "dynamic illustrator". A litany of tools for manipulating images and building animations right in the program, without needing to write a single line of code. And then, on top of that, you can actually.... write code! And it works quite well! Flash is one of the funnest programming environment to use for "interactive art". Straightforward things are almost always straightforward, and it's much easier to WYSIWYG your way through a lot of tedium.

amatecha 9y ago

Well, before Flash was around, there was HyperCard (and in fact ActionScript is derived from HyperTalk, the scripting language used in HyperCard). If you're not familiar, definitely take a look. It's also somewhat of a precursor to the WWW :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard

dyarosla 9y ago
I'm sure Flash took many ideas for HyperCard, and HyperCard was definitely ahead of its time in many ways as well. The interesting thing is, the most comparable environment I can think of today to Flash is Scratch, as it is a drawing, animation and programming tool all in one. Of course, as the goals of Scratch mostly lean towards being a kids learn-to-program tool, all three parts are much, much, much simpler.
Keyframe 9y ago
Everyone who was around the time MYST came along knows what HyperCard is! :)
- amatecha 9y ago
  haha, indeed! I remember trying to open the Ages in HyperCard and edit them and/or discover how they worked. Last year, I had the awesome fortune of meeting Rand Miller and got to chat with him a bit about HyperCard and how they used it for Myst. Though, I barely remember what we discussed because I was so excited to meet him, hahaha :'D
j45 9y ago
HyperCard, Filemaker Pro, Flash, Access, there were a lot of tools in this space to allow problem solvers to create experiences. I don't think it's about being the first, as much as being relevant to a different audience to achieve their results. Each did that well.

mikewhy 9y ago

Hype[0] is really good at the first two. We had short time to develop an animation for a site and I was shocked at how easy it was to use, integrate, and scale from mobile to desktop. Though I've got nothing to suggest for the interactivity part. [0]: http://tumult.com/hype/ http://tumult.com/hype/

dyarosla 9y ago
Cool! It does look like you can hook in javascript in there, so they do have that going for it.

dperfect 9y ago

I got started with Flash when it was still FutureSplash (FutureWave), and I think a lot of the credit we give Flash can be attributed to FutureSplash. It didn't have ActionScript yet, but if I remember correctly, it did have the ability to link visual elements to arbitrary frames within the animation timeline (as well as to other URLs), so it was actually pretty powerful (a bit like HyperCard for the web). I was still in elementary school at the time, but I remember creating original animations that my friends all thought were produced by professional animators (or templates), and it certainly expanded my vision of what could be accomplished with a computer. The fact that you could deliver such rich (and interactive) graphics/animations in such a small package - over a 28.8 kbps modem - was like magic. Keep in mind, this was before streaming video became practical for anyone, and simple things like JavaScript[1] rollover effects on buttons still had questionable browser compatibility. Apart from tiny GIFs[2] (usually flames or "under construction" signs), some random <blink> tags and scores of Java applets trying to make text scroll across the screen, the web was largely devoid of motion. I would argue that FutureSplash was the first technology to show us that the web was capable of delivering high-quality motion graphics (things that looked like video) - i.e., content delivery that would eventually compete with television. Indeed, its successor (Flash) would go on to build off that idea by incorporating streaming video support (responsible for most of the early video content online). Not only was the technology impressive under the surface, but as dyarosla mentions, the animator software struck a unique balance between being powerful and extremely approachable for beginners. That combination continued, for the most part, through Macromedia and Adobe. [1] Strangely enough, I seem to recall a few years later (probably when it was under Macromedia's control) a player was released that could play Flash animations in pure JavaScript (eliminating the need for a plugin). It's interesting to think about how far we've come since then, yet how similar that was to our modern web tech stack, at least in concept. [2] Actually, I don't think they were even animated GIFs as we know them. Client pull and server push animations: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/cgi/ch06_06.html http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/cgi/ch06_06.html

amatecha 9y ago
Whoa, nostalgia triggered -- I totally forgot about FutureSplash Animator! Ah man, good times :)

jnbiche 9y ago

> Really, I encourage you to try to name one! The CreateJS suite covers most, if not all, of what Flash could do in JavaScript. In fact, it is the library used by Adobe Animate professional to export Flash programs to HTML5 target. It may not be as user-friendly, but it's as comprehensive.

ivm 9y ago
Flash is not just ActionScript 3. The only environment that beats Flash IDE for asset management and editing is Unity3d.
dyarosla 9y ago
CreateJS is not an integrated digital art, animation and coding tool. It is a set of programming libraries that can program these things.
- jnbiche 9y ago
  OK, CreateJS with NanoFL, then. I prefer to work without GUI tools, but they are available if needed. But I readily grant that they are not advanced as the original Flash environment. BTW, to those that downvoted this comment to -2, in HN we generally don't downvote to express disagreement.

neovive 9y ago

I totally agree. My first tech job at a startup, around the time of the dotcom boom, was for an early streaming radio application that used Flash to deliver ads in a local desktop player. Flash was a simple, but empowering, tool. The ubiquity of the Flash player transformed the Internet into a true entertainment platform. Prior to Flash, technologies like RealAudio/Video, Quicktime, and animated gifs were clunky and couldn't compete with traditional media. With Flash came the first high-quality, streaming, web cartoons/animations; web games; and eventually Youtube (after the release of the FLV format). Flash should be recognized as a true innovation that paved the way for the modern web. The modern web stack of JS, HTML5 Video/Audio, SVG has finally caught up, but I don't think we'll ever see such seamless integration and power in one tool (for better or worse).

rsync 9y ago

"Really, I encourage you to try to name one!" HyperCard.

elorant 9y ago

The problem with Flash is that at some point people started using it to build websites. And then all hell broke loose. You had content which couldn't be indexed, broken browser functionality, severe usability issues, big load times (let's not forget that bandwidth wasn't always ample as it is today), security vulnerabilities, and a variety of other issues that made the whole experience pretty lame. So while Flash did indeed offered some unique capabilities in a friendly and frictionless package, it also hurt the web in so many ways.

andybak 9y ago
This was the main factor that had developers cheering for Flash's demise. 1000 terrible restaurant websites plus the fear that it might catch on and supplant HTML thus ceding ownership of the web to Adobe.
mattmanser 9y ago
This feels a bit like rewriting history, it wasn't for that long that people used flash to write websites. In my recollection there was like a 2 year window when you'd occasionally hit a flash site and groan to yourself. It was google that stopped that when people realized their sites weren't getting listed with SEO. And it seemed to be confined to mainly restaurants for some reason ;) I actually think it didn't hurt the web, it was a massive driver for change, Flash highlighted the lack of functionality in html/js and was part of the reason that forced html to finally get canvas, etc. If you're completely honest with yourself, you'll realise that html/js are still years behind what you can do in Silverlight and Adobe Air. Now it's mobile apps that are forcing the web to carry on evolving and highlight just how backward html/js is. In years time we'll have people saying that phone specific apps were terrible, but in reality, without something to show us the flaws of html/js are, it wouldn't move forward. Personally I'm no fan of the mono-culture of the web, the idea that you can only use one language, either for markup or for programming, should be anathema to all of us and instead it is bizarrely celebrated. I'd far prefer to be using Python or Ruby or whatever than javascript and in reality I think it's probably costing the world billions or trillions in wasted effort as we schlep around with javascript.
- 9y ago

tomelders 9y ago

Was anything "amazing" every created in Flash? It's obviously subjective, but things that would merit the "amazing" tag for me would be things like, Wikipedia, Google (the Search Engine), Facebook (love it or hate it, it's an awesome success), Google Maps, stuff like that. All I remember from the Flash days, and I was a flash developer bear in mind, was clunky, contentless, CPU hammering folly. None of which I think I miss.

Macha 9y ago
YouTube couldn't have started when it did without flash, even if it's moved on to html5 now. Also lots of indie game devs (e.g. team meat of super meat boy or binding of Isaac) got their start there, a lot of the early "upload your flash game here" might have paved the way for getting so many games on the app store model when it got going.
- tomelders 9y ago
  Had flash not existed, I suspect they would have used another video playback plugin, or rolled their own. I don't think YouTube's success was dependent on Flash. But the ubiquity of Flash certainly didn't hurt.
  - ygra 9y ago
    Imagine YouTube depending on QuickTime, Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, or Java Applets. Flash's user experience was just so much better than those options. I'd guess that YouTube couldn't have had that much success were there not such a ubiquitous (and downright good) plugin.
andybak 9y ago
> Was anything "amazing" every created in Flash? Not so many practical tools spring to mind but on the arts and creative side of things most definitely.
deniska 9y ago
> Was anything "amazing" every created in Flash? > Google Maps Here you go.

Nekorosu 9y ago

I second that except there was no filesize bloat. The plugin itself was quite heavy but the size of a flash site, banner, game and whatnot was based on amount of binary resources inside (images, sounds, videos). I remember Ad networks limits on flash banner sizes being very strict, less than 15 kBs. This was achievable because of excellent vector graphics capabilities of Flash IDE and plugin.

icebraining 9y ago
The problem is that it was hard (read: harder than with regular HTML files) to divide the file into different pages, or to implement progressive downloading, so many sites would download every single asset on the first request.

walterstucco 9y ago

> would contest that no other software, even today, has come close to being able to do these three so seamlessly at once What really made flash better than the rest (and still make it) was the ability to use a familiar interface for creatives (a timeline is a timeline) to to build resolution independent artifacts that they could test on their own, on their personal computers, just by pressing ENTER or frame by frame

rawTruthHurts 9y ago

"Really, I encourage you to try to name one!" Director