2 ms·

Security was just one reason Apple didn't like Flash. Also, it was really Flash's own limitations that killed it on mobile (which, it turn killed it on desktop

by jmull 5y ago

Security was just one reason Apple didn't like Flash. Also, it was really Flash's own limitations that killed it on mobile (which, it turn killed it on desktops). Don't forget it was on Android for a while and aggressively marketed as an advantage over iOS. But it was also a poor UX (slow, power-hungry, designed for mouse & keyboard not touch) and a propriety third-party black box. Apple didn't so much kill Flash as just be the first to see it coming and act on it.

noduerme 5y ago
As someone who was developing browser-based games in the space at that time, there was hardly a better option for touch interaction then. True, lots of older hover/highlight code just didn't work, and that was a pretty common thing with Flash. But all UX in Flash was built by coders who are now working in JS. It was entirely up to coders what to do within the box. Now the box is the whole window of the browser.
- jmull 5y ago
  > there was hardly a better option for touch interaction then Native. That's what Apple wanted (and still wants) you to be doing. To address your point more generally, though: that HTML 5 -- or some other technology -- was as bad as Flash in some ways is not a sufficient reason to support it. Flash was worse than the alternatives is some ways (and critically so in some cases, e.g., wrt power) and didn't offer any unique killer capabilities.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    It had a couple killer capabilities (to me). I did a lot of work with the Starling engine, and Away3D. And although this conversation is about browsers, a lot of my work was deployed via AIR, which still limps along, but I wouldn't invest in it now. Being able to deploy the same 2D/3D games on any platform and on the web with native GPU access is a killer app - and the best contender now is probably Unity. The ability drive fast vector animations without recourse to SVG or something, all within one dev environment and without many dependencies, provided an incredible workflow from artists to coders. Certain things that were taken for granted in Flash, like the native engine for determining mouse/touch position over layers and layers of different vectors (not bounding boxes) are still incredibly hard to replicate. Whole new platforms had to be written in JS to support these kinds of occlusions and improve rendering performance to a tolerable point. Things we have now like Pixijs would have absolutely destroyed the battery life on a 2010 iPhone. You're spot on that Apple always wanted native code, and still do, but what small studio has time to write everything three times? The idea of deploying and maintaining totally separate code for a casual game on Android and iOS and the web is a deal-breaker for a 5-person team, and putting all your energy into one walled garden is not what's best for the developer.

by jmull 5y ago

noduerme 5y ago

As someone who was developing browser-based games in the space at that time, there was hardly a better option for touch interaction then. True, lots of older hover/highlight code just didn't work, and that was a pretty common thing with Flash. But all UX in Flash was built by coders who are now working in JS. It was entirely up to coders what to do within the box. Now the box is the whole window of the browser.

jmull 5y ago
> there was hardly a better option for touch interaction then Native. That's what Apple wanted (and still wants) you to be doing. To address your point more generally, though: that HTML 5 -- or some other technology -- was as bad as Flash in some ways is not a sufficient reason to support it. Flash was worse than the alternatives is some ways (and critically so in some cases, e.g., wrt power) and didn't offer any unique killer capabilities.
- noduerme 5y ago
  It had a couple killer capabilities (to me). I did a lot of work with the Starling engine, and Away3D. And although this conversation is about browsers, a lot of my work was deployed via AIR, which still limps along, but I wouldn't invest in it now. Being able to deploy the same 2D/3D games on any platform and on the web with native GPU access is a killer app - and the best contender now is probably Unity. The ability drive fast vector animations without recourse to SVG or something, all within one dev environment and without many dependencies, provided an incredible workflow from artists to coders. Certain things that were taken for granted in Flash, like the native engine for determining mouse/touch position over layers and layers of different vectors (not bounding boxes) are still incredibly hard to replicate. Whole new platforms had to be written in JS to support these kinds of occlusions and improve rendering performance to a tolerable point. Things we have now like Pixijs would have absolutely destroyed the battery life on a 2010 iPhone. You're spot on that Apple always wanted native code, and still do, but what small studio has time to write everything three times? The idea of deploying and maintaining totally separate code for a casual game on Android and iOS and the web is a deal-breaker for a 5-person team, and putting all your energy into one walled garden is not what's best for the developer.