3 ms·

Flash isn't part of the Web. It's not vendor neutral. If Adobe decides to deprioritise a platform that mean the users of that platform with experience less sup

Flash isn't part of the Web. It's not vendor neutral. If Adobe decides to deprioritise a platform that mean the users of that platform with experience less support in terms of bug fixes, performance and security. If Adobe decides not to support a platform period that means users of that platform are left without a means to access Flash content. If you are a user this is unacceptable. More importantly these things have already happened.

koonsolo 11y ago
I fully agree with you. But like I said, if technology is replaced, it should be replaced by better technology. For websites, HTML5 offers enough to be considered a proper alternative. Yes, I probably dislike Flash websites as much as you do. But for games, HTML5 just doesn't cut it compared to Flash (or yes, even Java applets as someone else mentioned ;)). And the sad truth is that by design, each browser vendor will have it's own implementation with it's own quirks. (I seem to be getting a lot of down-votes on my original post, although I don't think I said anything incorrect)
- bobajeff 11y ago
  The Web is better, it's vendor neutral and not depended on whims of Adobe. Sure it may not be convenient for developers but as a user it's very convenient.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- sdenton4 11y ago
  I think the issue is with the 'better technology' bit. Flash simply isn't a better technology than HTML5. They are, as they say, a land of contrasts, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. But where HTML5 is moving forward, steadily improving, Flash is actually getting much worse with time, supporting an ever-smaller proportion of the net, and doing so with less stability and security.
r00fus 11y ago
> If Adobe decides to deprioritise a platform that mean the users of that platform with experience less support in terms of bug fixes, performance and security. Case in point, OSX. Wasn't until Flash v11 that OSX had hardware-assisted playback.

koonsolo 11y ago

I fully agree with you. But like I said, if technology is replaced, it should be replaced by better technology. For websites, HTML5 offers enough to be considered a proper alternative. Yes, I probably dislike Flash websites as much as you do. But for games, HTML5 just doesn't cut it compared to Flash (or yes, even Java applets as someone else mentioned ;)). And the sad truth is that by design, each browser vendor will have it's own implementation with it's own quirks. (I seem to be getting a lot of down-votes on my original post, although I don't think I said anything incorrect)

bobajeff 11y ago
The Web is better, it's vendor neutral and not depended on whims of Adobe. Sure it may not be convenient for developers but as a user it's very convenient.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
sdenton4 11y ago
I think the issue is with the 'better technology' bit. Flash simply isn't a better technology than HTML5. They are, as they say, a land of contrasts, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. But where HTML5 is moving forward, steadily improving, Flash is actually getting much worse with time, supporting an ever-smaller proportion of the net, and doing so with less stability and security.

r00fus 11y ago

> If Adobe decides to deprioritise a platform that mean the users of that platform with experience less support in terms of bug fixes, performance and security. Case in point, OSX. Wasn't until Flash v11 that OSX had hardware-assisted playback.