5 ms·
Flash didn't die because it was bad. The reason why Flash became so popular is that while the development tools cost money, the player was free for anyone to i
by phire 3y ago
Flash didn't die because it was bad.
The reason why Flash became so popular is that while the development tools cost money, the player was free for anyone to install. Browsers eventually started installing Flash by default (mostly so they could solve some of the security issues with prompt updates). By 2005, Adobe had a major monopoly on dynamic web content.
And then smartphones and tablets became a thing. Adobe didn't want to keep giving flash away for free, they wanted to exploit their monopoly for profit, by charging phone manufactures 25 cents per device for the right to include the flash runtime on their phones. Many Symbian, Windows CE, and later Android phones were paying this licensing fee to Adobe.
I suspect this royalty fee is large part of the reason why Job's "Thought's on Flash" letter came about. The letter mostly talks about need for open standards, and it is right. But I think Adobe's insistence on royalty fees really rubbed Apple the wrong way. Maybe if Adobe wasn't trying to extort smartphone vendors for royalty fees, it would have survived, and Adobe could still be charging money for the flash creative tool today.
Hell, if Adobe weren't trying to profit of the runtime, they wouldn't have had any objection to making the runtime an open standard and allowing anyone (including apple) create their own flash runtime implementations.
Flash didn't die because it was bad. Flash died because Adobe tried to exploit their monopoly for profit, and the wider industry responded to the threat.
- justinclift 3y ago> Flash didn't die because it was bad. Well, it certainly wasn't helped by the Flash Player being a never ending source of serious security exploits, sandbox bypasses, and more. :(
- phire 3y agoYes, but that's only a problem with the runtime implementation. I remember a number of people pushing Adobe to transform the runtime into an open standard. Then every browser would have been allowed to create their own implementations that actually fit with their security model.
- justinclift 3y ago> that's only a problem with the runtime implementation. "Only". Heh. Bit more than just some minor implementation detail, seeing as until Ruffle there's never been a successful 2nd implementation. ;) Plenty of false starts and half arse attempts to make one, but none that gained traction until now. :/
- phire 3y agoBecause nobody ever dedicated serious funding towards a 2nd implementation. Even Ruffle is doing it on a shoestring budget (some sponsorship and a lot of volunteer work) If Adobe had committed to turning Flash into an open standard back when it was still relevant (certainly before 2010, maybe as late as 2013), various companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla would have committed dozens of full-time engineers towards working with Adobe to document flash as a proper standard. And then those engineers would have gone back to their browsers to create implementations. None of those companies would have made a 2nd implementation of flash back then without Adobe's permission. Not only did they all have working relationships with Adobe (mostly around keeping adobe flash player updated and secure), but there was a risk Adobe might sue them. Also, without an offical standard, Flash was a moving target. Part of the reason why Ruffle is viable now is that Flash is dead, and there is no offical implementation that might change at a moments notice.
- Guy_w_Keyboard 3y agoThat's an interesting perspective. I always liked Flash. The web, frankly, was a lot better when it was in its prime.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago> Flash didn't die because it was bad. Which is a shame because it was bad. Like having to run an app from Adobe to clear out pernicious tracking cookies kinda bad.