5 ms·

> Apple wanted to kill flash because it was CPU intensive and Jobs hated it. They wanted the first iPhone(s) to have great battery life and the web was plagued

> Apple wanted to kill flash because it was CPU intensive and Jobs hated it. They wanted the first iPhone(s) to have great battery life and the web was plagued by flash intros, games, and what not at that time. But now the web is plagued by javascript doing the same, often even more intensively. Is it better or worse?

outside1234 6y ago
Better. JavaScript is a web standard.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  And flash couldn't have been one? Edit: I was 9 when Jobs wrote his thing on Flash, so I appreciate the downvotes for asking a question?
  - vondur 6y ago
    Probably would not happen under Adobe.
  - muldvarp 6y ago
    Flash was proprietary, didn't have a specification and only one real implementation ever existed.
    - johnchristopher 6y ago
      Flash was using actionscript which was ecma262-3/4.
      - duskwuff 6y ago
        ActionScript only "existed" on the authoring side. Scripts were compiled to (proprietary) bytecode before being embedded in the SWF file. Besides, there's a lot more to SWF than the scripts.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - userbinator 6y ago
      What is all this BS about it being proprietary... https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/pdf/swf-file-format-spec.pdf https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/pdf/swf-fil... Straight from the horse's mouth, as they say. There's also a few other implementations, although they found use embedded in games and such instead of being browser plugins.
      - anthk 6y ago
        It was and gnash/lightspark barely worked.
  - eropple 6y ago
    Could have? Sure, if some things broke the right way. Was gonna be? Not that I know of. Did? No.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TwoBit 6y ago
No, because JavaScript isn't nearly the bug factory that Flash was. Literally every month there was a new Flash full compromise bug, for multiple years.
- nn3 6y ago
  Have you ever read the release notes of your browser? JavaScript has holes basically every month too
  - TwoBit 6y ago
    It's true that security bugs are being fixed in most Chrome releases. However, these seem to be much more obscure and/or hard to capitalize on compared to the Flash bugs. I admit I don't have a proof of that.
  - TwoBit 6y ago
    Lol read this which was just posted today and makes my claims seem stupid:https://threatpost.com/firefox-chrome-edge-bugs-system-hijacking/162873/ https://threatpost.com/firefox-chrome-edge-bugs-system-hijac... Well it still may be harder to attack this than Flash, but still...
EvanAnderson 6y ago
Worse. You could use most websites with Flash disabled and get by fine. That's a lot more difficult with Javascript today. Flash had a much more arms-length relationship to the browser and wasn't able to be used as a surveillance tool as effectively as Javascript can be. The constrained nature of Flash made it less of a threat to an open and standards-based web than Javascript (and more broadly WASM). Edit: On the last point - Flash wasn't able to boot a virtual x86 in a browser. Obligatory reference: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  You can use most websites with javascript disabled just fine. In fact, it generally greatly improves your experience. Thanks to the ADA, American sites (or sites that do a lot of business with America) must work with assistive technologies, mainly web browsers designed for the blind. Most of those do not run js. So, you cannot design your website so that it doesn't work with js disabled, unless you are willing to expose yourself to massive legal liability. People used to ignore this a lot, but since Domino’s Pizza v. Guillermo Robles, most sites have been fixed so that they are usable without js. I strongly recommend getting ublock, blocking all js by default, and then whitelisting sites where it is required/useful. It's hard to overstate just how much better it makes browsing in general.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    You don't have to sell me. I've had Javascript disabled by default for a couple of years now. I love it. I'm a technical person. I can handle (and have the patience for) fidgeting with settings to get sites to work. My non-technical friends and family can't do that. Trying to impose that upon them would just frustrate them (and, for my family, increase tech support calls to me). All my banking and insurance sites are useless w/o Javascript. Squarespace sites, Twitter, Imgur, don't work worth a damn without Javascript. I just gave up and mostly gave Google properties a pass to get Youtube to work. (I don't use Gmail so I have no idea how bad it would be.) A site better be pretty damned compelling before it rises to the level of getting opened in an unconstrained browser setting. I just end up not opening a lot of stuff (or just closing it again when it lights-up "NoScript").
egypturnash 6y ago
Browsers can attempt to improve Javascript performance because it's an open standard. And 2d rendering performance, and 3d rendering performance, and whatever else. The only people who could improve the Flash plugin's performance were the people at Adobe working on it. And, well, Adobe just doesn't give two shits about performance of any of their tools unless they absolutely have to.
wil421 6y ago
Mildly better. Flash was more like Java applets than JavaScript. It was its own thing running in the browser.
justsomeshmuck 6y ago
From what I recall, Apple approached Adobe during development of iPhone to nail down performance/battery concerns of Flash and Adobe basically blew them off.
- rendall 6y ago
  No. This is untrue. Apple had no intention of working with Adobe. Flash competed with the App Store. Adobe approached Apple many times to nail down performance issues and Apple blew them off
  - asddubs 6y ago
    There was no app store when the iphone launched
    - rendall 6y ago
      The App Store launched on July 10, 2008 one year and a half after the announcement of the iPhone. Previously there had been no 3rd party apps on the iPhone, only Apple-made native apps and 3rd party web apps. In that context, Flash's absence needed to be explained. Nevertheless, it took another 2 years for Jobs to write his screed, "Thoughts on Flash". By that time, Apple was well aware what a cash cow the App Store was
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        If the app store appeared 1.5 years after the first iPhones, it was already conceived and development well underway when the iPhone launched. I don't have any firsthand knowledge of who blew off whom, but I'd guess it was Apple doing the blowing because that's traditionally what they do.
        rendall 6y ago
        I'm not sure that Apple intended to exclude Flash from day 1. I imagine there were difficult technical integration issues, never mind any other business interests. But once the App Store was launched and Apple commanded a 30% share of every single application sold on the platform, I cannot imagine why they would allow Flash to give away comparable applications for free. The argument has merit that Apple wanted a more precise control over user experience, and badly written Flash apps could disrupt that, but I honestly believe that was a secondary concern compared to protecting their App Store revenue stream.
userbinator 6y ago
Jobs' rant about Flash was really a good example of "shooting the messenger". Flash is an intrinsically more efficient format; it was designed back when 56k modems were the norm, and computers far less powerful, so SWF made use of lots of interesting tricks to squeeze the most of out the platform and be extremely simple to parse. Those who remember playing Flash games will definitely know just how much computing power they needed --- a fraction of that needed for today's "equivalent" with HTML/CSS/JS. You will never get close to that level of efficiency with HTML/JS/CSS, although they are certainly trying with things like WASM. I say this as someone who has implemented a significant part of a SWF player, including parts of the AS2 VM.

outside1234 6y ago

Better. JavaScript is a web standard.

mhh__ 6y ago
And flash couldn't have been one? Edit: I was 9 when Jobs wrote his thing on Flash, so I appreciate the downvotes for asking a question?
- vondur 6y ago
  Probably would not happen under Adobe.
- muldvarp 6y ago
  Flash was proprietary, didn't have a specification and only one real implementation ever existed.
  - johnchristopher 6y ago
    Flash was using actionscript which was ecma262-3/4.
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      ActionScript only "existed" on the authoring side. Scripts were compiled to (proprietary) bytecode before being embedded in the SWF file. Besides, there's a lot more to SWF than the scripts.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - userbinator 6y ago
    What is all this BS about it being proprietary... https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/pdf/swf-file-format-spec.pdf https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/pdf/swf-fil... Straight from the horse's mouth, as they say. There's also a few other implementations, although they found use embedded in games and such instead of being browser plugins.
    - anthk 6y ago
      It was and gnash/lightspark barely worked.
- eropple 6y ago
  Could have? Sure, if some things broke the right way. Was gonna be? Not that I know of. Did? No.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TwoBit 6y ago

No, because JavaScript isn't nearly the bug factory that Flash was. Literally every month there was a new Flash full compromise bug, for multiple years.

nn3 6y ago
Have you ever read the release notes of your browser? JavaScript has holes basically every month too
- TwoBit 6y ago
  It's true that security bugs are being fixed in most Chrome releases. However, these seem to be much more obscure and/or hard to capitalize on compared to the Flash bugs. I admit I don't have a proof of that.
- TwoBit 6y ago
  Lol read this which was just posted today and makes my claims seem stupid:https://threatpost.com/firefox-chrome-edge-bugs-system-hijacking/162873/ https://threatpost.com/firefox-chrome-edge-bugs-system-hijac... Well it still may be harder to attack this than Flash, but still...

EvanAnderson 6y ago

Worse. You could use most websites with Flash disabled and get by fine. That's a lot more difficult with Javascript today. Flash had a much more arms-length relationship to the browser and wasn't able to be used as a surveillance tool as effectively as Javascript can be. The constrained nature of Flash made it less of a threat to an open and standards-based web than Javascript (and more broadly WASM). Edit: On the last point - Flash wasn't able to boot a virtual x86 in a browser. Obligatory reference: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...

Tuna-Fish 6y ago
You can use most websites with javascript disabled just fine. In fact, it generally greatly improves your experience. Thanks to the ADA, American sites (or sites that do a lot of business with America) must work with assistive technologies, mainly web browsers designed for the blind. Most of those do not run js. So, you cannot design your website so that it doesn't work with js disabled, unless you are willing to expose yourself to massive legal liability. People used to ignore this a lot, but since Domino’s Pizza v. Guillermo Robles, most sites have been fixed so that they are usable without js. I strongly recommend getting ublock, blocking all js by default, and then whitelisting sites where it is required/useful. It's hard to overstate just how much better it makes browsing in general.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  You don't have to sell me. I've had Javascript disabled by default for a couple of years now. I love it. I'm a technical person. I can handle (and have the patience for) fidgeting with settings to get sites to work. My non-technical friends and family can't do that. Trying to impose that upon them would just frustrate them (and, for my family, increase tech support calls to me). All my banking and insurance sites are useless w/o Javascript. Squarespace sites, Twitter, Imgur, don't work worth a damn without Javascript. I just gave up and mostly gave Google properties a pass to get Youtube to work. (I don't use Gmail so I have no idea how bad it would be.) A site better be pretty damned compelling before it rises to the level of getting opened in an unconstrained browser setting. I just end up not opening a lot of stuff (or just closing it again when it lights-up "NoScript").

egypturnash 6y ago

Browsers can attempt to improve Javascript performance because it's an open standard. And 2d rendering performance, and 3d rendering performance, and whatever else. The only people who could improve the Flash plugin's performance were the people at Adobe working on it. And, well, Adobe just doesn't give two shits about performance of any of their tools unless they absolutely have to.

wil421 6y ago

Mildly better. Flash was more like Java applets than JavaScript. It was its own thing running in the browser.

justsomeshmuck 6y ago

From what I recall, Apple approached Adobe during development of iPhone to nail down performance/battery concerns of Flash and Adobe basically blew them off.

rendall 6y ago
No. This is untrue. Apple had no intention of working with Adobe. Flash competed with the App Store. Adobe approached Apple many times to nail down performance issues and Apple blew them off
- asddubs 6y ago
  There was no app store when the iphone launched
  - rendall 6y ago
    The App Store launched on July 10, 2008 one year and a half after the announcement of the iPhone. Previously there had been no 3rd party apps on the iPhone, only Apple-made native apps and 3rd party web apps. In that context, Flash's absence needed to be explained. Nevertheless, it took another 2 years for Jobs to write his screed, "Thoughts on Flash". By that time, Apple was well aware what a cash cow the App Store was
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      If the app store appeared 1.5 years after the first iPhones, it was already conceived and development well underway when the iPhone launched. I don't have any firsthand knowledge of who blew off whom, but I'd guess it was Apple doing the blowing because that's traditionally what they do.
      - rendall 6y ago
        I'm not sure that Apple intended to exclude Flash from day 1. I imagine there were difficult technical integration issues, never mind any other business interests. But once the App Store was launched and Apple commanded a 30% share of every single application sold on the platform, I cannot imagine why they would allow Flash to give away comparable applications for free. The argument has merit that Apple wanted a more precise control over user experience, and badly written Flash apps could disrupt that, but I honestly believe that was a secondary concern compared to protecting their App Store revenue stream.

userbinator 6y ago

Jobs' rant about Flash was really a good example of "shooting the messenger". Flash is an intrinsically more efficient format; it was designed back when 56k modems were the norm, and computers far less powerful, so SWF made use of lots of interesting tricks to squeeze the most of out the platform and be extremely simple to parse. Those who remember playing Flash games will definitely know just how much computing power they needed --- a fraction of that needed for today's "equivalent" with HTML/CSS/JS. You will never get close to that level of efficiency with HTML/JS/CSS, although they are certainly trying with things like WASM. I say this as someone who has implemented a significant part of a SWF player, including parts of the AS2 VM.