Originally Posted by al_bundy
demographically the US is in a baby boom. every kid website requires flash
. going forward every smartphone is going to need flash since kids will be using it
One thing we must never ignore is the dynamism of technology: What is considered the norm yesterday may not be the standard today, as today's cannot be guaranteed to still be prevalent in the future.
Where is IBM's card puching computing these days (once the standard of mainframe comouting).. Where is DOS these days, once thhe standard of MIcrosoft system. Why did Microsoft accept defeat and decided to start anew instead of insisting that its once mighty Mobile OS for the mobile computing is still relevant?
Even the incandescent bulb -- which for more than a century. is the standard way of lighting -- is on its way out. People may want to light their home, but no, they will not iosist on keeping the incandescent bulb as the way of the future, simply because it is the "universal standard" today. The telegraph technology was once the standard but already phased out.
The other thing is for competing technologies to "co-exist" sometimes almost foreover -- film, radio, television and internet and other multimedia -- as sources of information and entertainment. Sometimes, such competition lead to the demise of one system over another. At times, it is not even the "superior technology" that would survive, because of the impact of other market forces and human prejudices.
The average person may not know, or even if they do, they may not care less what technology they use. Take the case of social networking sites for example. Once it was AOL Inow almost viritually non-existent) Once it was Geocities in the late 1990's up to early 20000s (where's Geocities now?), then MySpace, then now FaceBook. Do you think they will exxist "foreover"?
As to people and internet sites. It is more their experience when visiting a siteer that matt. As to kids of today, if I am not mistaken, they are the major consumers of iPods, and You Tube, and Apple Apps, and visitors of Facebook, Baseball's MLB, etc. All these sites have deemed it prudent to make sure that their sites are compatible with the iPhone OS -- no Flash already for almost three years and counting.
Why do these commercial and non-commerccial sites (like BBC, PBS, etc) "waste" their time porting to iPhone OS?
Why don't these companies and institutions not use their clout to insist that Flash be made a "standard", like many of your kind seem to suggest? Two simple reasons. Flash is proprietary. And more important, rightly or wrongly, no one can ignore the more than 120 million iTunes "card" members and the more than 70 million iPhone and iPod Touch owners -- soon to be increased further by the incoming iPad owners.
Thus, if they do not ignore the more "affluent" Apple products consumers, then these companies, organizations, institutions must create alternative sites that are compatible with a system that will not accept Flash. Note that these sites did not dismantle their "Flash" rich sites. They just provided alternative modes of viewing the same content -- much like they will provide alternative sites for other mobile computing devices -- if they think they will make money doing so.
Will these guarantee that the iPhone OS will rule "foreover"? NO.
If all of you who seem to parrot the mantra about "Flash" or whatever technology you wish to espouse fully realize these, you may realize how foolish to be making such "pontifications", e.g., "Flash is universal", as I often read here and in many sites.
Nothing is constant like the inevitability of change..