It, and all other plug-ins, need to go away because web content shouldn't depend on proprietary plug-ins, doubly so when the company that owns the technology has demonstrated its inability to support the technology across multiple platforms. This isn't a new problem. At least now we're at the point where the solution is becoming available.
Plug-ins have always been a bad thing, don't you absolutely hate it when you go to some website that wants you to download some weird ass plug-in you never heard of? Don't you hate it even more when the plug-in isn't available for your platform? If there is anything that the whole situation of Flash not being on new mobile devices should tell us, it's that plug-ins, if we are wedded to them, hold back progress.
Why should users on any platform have to wait for Adobe to get off its lazy ass and write a version of Flash for them, if it deems them worthy? Why should any company have the success of its platform depend on Adobe's good graces? Why don't Linux users have a QuickTime plug-in from Apple, and why does their Flash plug-in totally suck?
It really is very much as SJ described in his "Thoughts on Flash". Proprietary plug-ins, especially meta-platforms, are detrimental to progress. Eliminating plug-ins and moving to open standards that are implemented in web browsers gives control back to, and puts the responsibility on, platform and browser developers, where it belongs.
This is one of those things, like having a tumor removed, where there will be a little pain along the way, but we'll all be much better off for in the end.
Your perspective is far too emotional in my opinion. When I see a page that asks for a plug-in, I don't hate, I just move on. I'd like to see a show of hands from the Flash haters. How many of you have removed the plug-in from your browser? None, because you might what to see something in Flash from time to time. The Internet is like a big city. You may like a quiet peaceful neighborhood but someone else might prefer the neon lights and loud music of the downtown scene. There should be room for everyone to enjoy life, no reason to hate.
If you want to play with semantics then go right ahead. The fact of the matter is, to the end user that doesn't care about the definition or technology of how these things work, they get to those products via the web. So it is part of the web. Sure, you can define things more precisely however you want, and categorize things however you want. But to regular consumers that don't even know what HTTP means, it's part of the web, and they're the vast majority of users out there.
It's not semantics, the point is that they possess no "webness". They are self-contained entities that would be just as well served by the plug-in being a shell app simply does what the plug-in does. They would lose absolutely none of their character by not being accessed through a web browser as other content are, and thus are not really part of the web. They are simply things that are parasitic on the web for their distribution.
It's not semantics, the point is that they possess no "webness". They are self-contained entities that would be just as well served by the plug-in being a shell app simply does what the plug-in does. They would lose absolutely none of their character by not being accessed through a web browser as other content are, and thus are not really part of the web. They are simply things that are parasitic on the web for their distribution.
Isn't the web just a series of tubes? Digital content is simply ones and zeros rearranged in different ways. I don't think something can have more or less "webness".
Your perspective is far too emotional in my opinion. When I see a page that asks for a plug-in, I don't hate, I just move on. I'd like to see a show of hands from the Flash haters. How many of you have removed the plug-in from your browser? None, because you might what to see something in Flash from time to time. The Internet is like a big city. You may like a quiet peaceful neighborhood but someone else might prefer the neon lights and loud music of the downtown scene. There should be room for everyone to enjoy life, no reason to hate.
There are levels of hate. We aren't talking about the kind that sends you into a murderous rage here, we're talking about the kind that, at most, leads to an exasperated sigh.
People keep it around because, yes, there may be from time to time, some content that they desire or need to look at that requires it. But that doesn't mean it's desirable. It's like keeping the guy who's the only one at the company that knows how some thing works on the job. He's a waste of company resources, but you can't get rid of him till the system he's responsible for is obsoleted. Having him there isn't a good thing, it's just, temporarily, the lesser of two evils, and you can't wait for the day when he's shown the door.
Isn't the web just a series of tubes? Digital content is simply ones and zeros rearranged in different ways. I don't think something can have more or less "webness".
No, you confuse the network and its traffic with the web.
Isn't the web just a series of tubes? Digital content is simply ones and zeros rearranged in different ways. I don't think something can have more or less "webness".
A lot of the technologies behind the web (including the web itself) were designed to enable interoperability between devices.
One could say measures that increase or enhance interoperability are in the traditional spirit of the web and those which seek to reduce interoperability are not.
People keep it around because, yes, there may be from time to time, some content that they desire or need to look at that requires it. But that doesn't mean it's desirable. It's like keeping the guy who's the only one at the company that knows how some thing works on the job. He's a waste of company resources, but you can't get rid of him till the system he's responsible for is obsoleted. Having him there isn't a good thing, it's just, temporarily, the lesser of two evils, and you can't wait for the day when he's shown the door.
See, I think you just don't like the guy. The system he controls works fine and there is no reason to get rid of it. If you were the owner of the company then you could go out and spend all your resources to replace his system. And even if the new system couldn't do half of what the old system could do and nobody really understands how it works, at least you got rid of the guy you didn't like. I'd say your are just hating Adobe and probably Microsoft as well, simply because they are successful and they don't listen to you.
A lot of the technologies behind the web (including the web itself) were designed to enable interoperability between devices.
One could say measures that increase or enhance interoperability are in the traditional spirit of the web and those which seek to reduce interoperability are not.
People like the way Flash works in their browser. Links in a browser launch Flash and links in Flash open content in the browser. That is the type of interoperability that people want. The browser is really just a container. I know I like reading my email in a browser. It is less convenient for me when I click a link that launches my mail client. I would rather it went to a contact form in the browser. So would the iPad/iPhone lack of Flash serve to reduce or increase interoperability?
It's not semantics, the point is that they possess no "webness". They are self-contained entities that would be just as well served by the plug-in being a shell app simply does what the plug-in does. They would lose absolutely none of their character by not being accessed through a web browser as other content are, and thus are not really part of the web. They are simply things that are parasitic on the web for their distribution.
Well, I agree with what you're saying. However, I would say it's all just a matter of opinion. I could say they certainly do have "webness" because they're on the web, you can use the plugin to do things within a web application or single page, and still have the web surrounding the plugin's functionality. Again, this is just a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree.
My main point, however, is that end users don't have these conversations like we're having, they don't give a darn if it has "webness", if the plugin uses up too much of their processor (unless it's blatantly obvious and making other things on their PC slow down), if the plugin is open source or closed source (it's a free plugin, so they just don't care).
I agree with your statement that they would lose none of their character, in and of themselves, if they were stand alone applications. However, that would mean the user has to have the app installed on whatever device they're using, and have that device with them at all times, instead of being able to access that content from anywhere, using that same plugin, that works on just about any computer with just about any browser.
All I'm saying is that I respectfully disagree with your opinion that they should just all go away. I think that's just to simple of a thing to say, and most of the time when people say that it's because they hate Flash for whatever reason, or hate Adobe, and they want the web to work the way THEY think it should work, instead of leaving it up to end users to individually make their choices as they see fit.
... However, that would mean the user has to have the app installed on whatever device they're using, and have that device with them at all times, instead of being able to access that content from anywhere. ...
How does that differ from having to have the plug-in installed on whatever device they're using and having to have that device with them at all times, instead of being able to access that content from anywhere?
A lot of the technologies behind the web (including the web itself) were designed to enable interoperability between devices.
One could say measures that increase or enhance interoperability are in the traditional spirit of the web and those which seek to reduce interoperability are not.
See, I think you just don't like the guy. The system he controls works fine and there is no reason to get rid of it. If you were the owner of the company then you could go out and spend all your resources to replace his system. And even if the new system couldn't do half of what the old system could do and nobody really understands how it works, at least you got rid of the guy you didn't like. ...
Except that the system he controls doesn't work fine. It's buggy, causes a lot of crashes, there are major security holes in it, and all these things are costing the company in lost profits. The only reason I don't like him is that he isn't reliable, and doesn't care whether the company does well or not. he's just there to collect his paycheck.
People like the way Flash works in their browser. Links in a browser launch Flash and links in Flash open content in the browser. That is the type of interoperability that people want. The browser is really just a container. I know I like reading my email in a browser. It is less convenient for me when I click a link that launches my mail client. I would rather it went to a contact form in the browser. So would the iPad/iPhone lack of Flash serve to reduce or increase interoperability?
Well, the new system will take care of all those features, and when we phase out the guy who's been in charge of the old buggy system, everyone will be much happier, except for him.
People like the way Flash works in their browser. Links in a browser launch Flash and links in Flash open content in the browser. That is the type of interoperability that people want. The browser is really just a container. I know I like reading my email in a browser. It is less convenient for me when I click a link that launches my mail client. I would rather it went to a contact form in the browser. So would the iPad/iPhone lack of Flash serve to reduce or increase interoperability?
I'm not saying being in the traditional spirit of the web is a good or bad thing. Arguments could be made either way of where Flash stands.
How does that differ from having to have the plug-in installed on whatever device they're using and having to have that device with them at all times, instead of being able to access that content from anywhere?
Are you telling me there's absolutely no difference between having to install an entire application locally and running it through a plugin that's already installed on just about every computer out there and installs in seconds if it's not currently installed?
Well, the new system will take care of all those features, and when we phase out the guy who's been in charge of the old buggy system, everyone will be much happier, except for him.
I pretty much agree with you here, and I'd love an alternative for most of the things Flash is used for, heck all of them if that's possible without some sort of plugin.
But the thing I don't understand is why you, and many other, assume that everyone else will "be much happier". How do you know if that's true? We simply don't know, so just let the market work things out, give consumers the freedom to choose for themselves. They're already doing that using flash blockers and moving to support HTML5 and/or other things.
People that don't like Flash, or any other plugin for that matter, don't have to see it or use it, there's no force involved whatsoever.
Human ingenuity is amazing, I was wondering if/when someone would come up with something like that. I know there's a lot of Adobe hate out there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they created something like that in the future. I would think they're going to need to in order to stay competitive and profitable.
I pretty much agree with you here, and I'd love an alternative for most of the things Flash is used for, heck all of them if that's possible without some sort of plugin.
But the thing I don't understand is why you, and many other, assume that everyone else will "be much happier". How do you know if that's true? We simply don't know, so just let the market work things out, give consumers the freedom to choose for themselves. They're already doing that using flash blockers and moving to support HTML5 and/or other things.
People that don't like Flash, or any other plugin for that matter, don't have to see it or use it, there's no force involved whatsoever.
Well, the market will sort it out, and they do have the freedom to choose for themselves: to buy an iPhone or iPad or not, for example. We haven't been discussing the mechanism of how Flash and other plug-ins will be obsoleted, just why or why not it's desirable.
Comments
It, and all other plug-ins, need to go away because web content shouldn't depend on proprietary plug-ins, doubly so when the company that owns the technology has demonstrated its inability to support the technology across multiple platforms. This isn't a new problem. At least now we're at the point where the solution is becoming available.
Plug-ins have always been a bad thing, don't you absolutely hate it when you go to some website that wants you to download some weird ass plug-in you never heard of? Don't you hate it even more when the plug-in isn't available for your platform? If there is anything that the whole situation of Flash not being on new mobile devices should tell us, it's that plug-ins, if we are wedded to them, hold back progress.
Why should users on any platform have to wait for Adobe to get off its lazy ass and write a version of Flash for them, if it deems them worthy? Why should any company have the success of its platform depend on Adobe's good graces? Why don't Linux users have a QuickTime plug-in from Apple, and why does their Flash plug-in totally suck?
It really is very much as SJ described in his "Thoughts on Flash". Proprietary plug-ins, especially meta-platforms, are detrimental to progress. Eliminating plug-ins and moving to open standards that are implemented in web browsers gives control back to, and puts the responsibility on, platform and browser developers, where it belongs.
This is one of those things, like having a tumor removed, where there will be a little pain along the way, but we'll all be much better off for in the end.
Your perspective is far too emotional in my opinion. When I see a page that asks for a plug-in, I don't hate, I just move on. I'd like to see a show of hands from the Flash haters. How many of you have removed the plug-in from your browser? None, because you might what to see something in Flash from time to time. The Internet is like a big city. You may like a quiet peaceful neighborhood but someone else might prefer the neon lights and loud music of the downtown scene. There should be room for everyone to enjoy life, no reason to hate.
If you want to play with semantics then go right ahead. The fact of the matter is, to the end user that doesn't care about the definition or technology of how these things work, they get to those products via the web. So it is part of the web. Sure, you can define things more precisely however you want, and categorize things however you want. But to regular consumers that don't even know what HTTP means, it's part of the web, and they're the vast majority of users out there.
It's not semantics, the point is that they possess no "webness". They are self-contained entities that would be just as well served by the plug-in being a shell app simply does what the plug-in does. They would lose absolutely none of their character by not being accessed through a web browser as other content are, and thus are not really part of the web. They are simply things that are parasitic on the web for their distribution.
It's not semantics, the point is that they possess no "webness". They are self-contained entities that would be just as well served by the plug-in being a shell app simply does what the plug-in does. They would lose absolutely none of their character by not being accessed through a web browser as other content are, and thus are not really part of the web. They are simply things that are parasitic on the web for their distribution.
Isn't the web just a series of tubes? Digital content is simply ones and zeros rearranged in different ways. I don't think something can have more or less "webness".
Your perspective is far too emotional in my opinion. When I see a page that asks for a plug-in, I don't hate, I just move on. I'd like to see a show of hands from the Flash haters. How many of you have removed the plug-in from your browser? None, because you might what to see something in Flash from time to time. The Internet is like a big city. You may like a quiet peaceful neighborhood but someone else might prefer the neon lights and loud music of the downtown scene. There should be room for everyone to enjoy life, no reason to hate.
There are levels of hate. We aren't talking about the kind that sends you into a murderous rage here, we're talking about the kind that, at most, leads to an exasperated sigh.
People keep it around because, yes, there may be from time to time, some content that they desire or need to look at that requires it. But that doesn't mean it's desirable. It's like keeping the guy who's the only one at the company that knows how some thing works on the job. He's a waste of company resources, but you can't get rid of him till the system he's responsible for is obsoleted. Having him there isn't a good thing, it's just, temporarily, the lesser of two evils, and you can't wait for the day when he's shown the door.
Isn't the web just a series of tubes? Digital content is simply ones and zeros rearranged in different ways. I don't think something can have more or less "webness".
No, you confuse the network and its traffic with the web.
Isn't the web just a series of tubes? Digital content is simply ones and zeros rearranged in different ways. I don't think something can have more or less "webness".
A lot of the technologies behind the web (including the web itself) were designed to enable interoperability between devices.
One could say measures that increase or enhance interoperability are in the traditional spirit of the web and those which seek to reduce interoperability are not.
People keep it around because, yes, there may be from time to time, some content that they desire or need to look at that requires it. But that doesn't mean it's desirable. It's like keeping the guy who's the only one at the company that knows how some thing works on the job. He's a waste of company resources, but you can't get rid of him till the system he's responsible for is obsoleted. Having him there isn't a good thing, it's just, temporarily, the lesser of two evils, and you can't wait for the day when he's shown the door.
See, I think you just don't like the guy. The system he controls works fine and there is no reason to get rid of it. If you were the owner of the company then you could go out and spend all your resources to replace his system. And even if the new system couldn't do half of what the old system could do and nobody really understands how it works, at least you got rid of the guy you didn't like. I'd say your are just hating Adobe and probably Microsoft as well, simply because they are successful and they don't listen to you.
A lot of the technologies behind the web (including the web itself) were designed to enable interoperability between devices.
One could say measures that increase or enhance interoperability are in the traditional spirit of the web and those which seek to reduce interoperability are not.
People like the way Flash works in their browser. Links in a browser launch Flash and links in Flash open content in the browser. That is the type of interoperability that people want. The browser is really just a container. I know I like reading my email in a browser. It is less convenient for me when I click a link that launches my mail client. I would rather it went to a contact form in the browser. So would the iPad/iPhone lack of Flash serve to reduce or increase interoperability?
It's not semantics, the point is that they possess no "webness". They are self-contained entities that would be just as well served by the plug-in being a shell app simply does what the plug-in does. They would lose absolutely none of their character by not being accessed through a web browser as other content are, and thus are not really part of the web. They are simply things that are parasitic on the web for their distribution.
Well, I agree with what you're saying. However, I would say it's all just a matter of opinion. I could say they certainly do have "webness" because they're on the web, you can use the plugin to do things within a web application or single page, and still have the web surrounding the plugin's functionality. Again, this is just a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree.
My main point, however, is that end users don't have these conversations like we're having, they don't give a darn if it has "webness", if the plugin uses up too much of their processor (unless it's blatantly obvious and making other things on their PC slow down), if the plugin is open source or closed source (it's a free plugin, so they just don't care).
I agree with your statement that they would lose none of their character, in and of themselves, if they were stand alone applications. However, that would mean the user has to have the app installed on whatever device they're using, and have that device with them at all times, instead of being able to access that content from anywhere, using that same plugin, that works on just about any computer with just about any browser.
All I'm saying is that I respectfully disagree with your opinion that they should just all go away. I think that's just to simple of a thing to say, and most of the time when people say that it's because they hate Flash for whatever reason, or hate Adobe, and they want the web to work the way THEY think it should work, instead of leaving it up to end users to individually make their choices as they see fit.
... However, that would mean the user has to have the app installed on whatever device they're using, and have that device with them at all times, instead of being able to access that content from anywhere. ...
How does that differ from having to have the plug-in installed on whatever device they're using and having to have that device with them at all times, instead of being able to access that content from anywhere?
A lot of the technologies behind the web (including the web itself) were designed to enable interoperability between devices.
One could say measures that increase or enhance interoperability are in the traditional spirit of the web and those which seek to reduce interoperability are not.
You're confusing the Internet with the web.
See, I think you just don't like the guy. The system he controls works fine and there is no reason to get rid of it. If you were the owner of the company then you could go out and spend all your resources to replace his system. And even if the new system couldn't do half of what the old system could do and nobody really understands how it works, at least you got rid of the guy you didn't like. ...
Except that the system he controls doesn't work fine. It's buggy, causes a lot of crashes, there are major security holes in it, and all these things are costing the company in lost profits. The only reason I don't like him is that he isn't reliable, and doesn't care whether the company does well or not. he's just there to collect his paycheck.
People like the way Flash works in their browser. Links in a browser launch Flash and links in Flash open content in the browser. That is the type of interoperability that people want. The browser is really just a container. I know I like reading my email in a browser. It is less convenient for me when I click a link that launches my mail client. I would rather it went to a contact form in the browser. So would the iPad/iPhone lack of Flash serve to reduce or increase interoperability?
Well, the new system will take care of all those features, and when we phase out the guy who's been in charge of the old buggy system, everyone will be much happier, except for him.
People like the way Flash works in their browser. Links in a browser launch Flash and links in Flash open content in the browser. That is the type of interoperability that people want. The browser is really just a container. I know I like reading my email in a browser. It is less convenient for me when I click a link that launches my mail client. I would rather it went to a contact form in the browser. So would the iPad/iPhone lack of Flash serve to reduce or increase interoperability?
I'm not saying being in the traditional spirit of the web is a good or bad thing. Arguments could be made either way of where Flash stands.
How does that differ from having to have the plug-in installed on whatever device they're using and having to have that device with them at all times, instead of being able to access that content from anywhere?
Are you telling me there's absolutely no difference between having to install an entire application locally and running it through a plugin that's already installed on just about every computer out there and installs in seconds if it's not currently installed?
Well, the new system will take care of all those features, and when we phase out the guy who's been in charge of the old buggy system, everyone will be much happier, except for him.
I pretty much agree with you here, and I'd love an alternative for most of the things Flash is used for, heck all of them if that's possible without some sort of plugin.
But the thing I don't understand is why you, and many other, assume that everyone else will "be much happier". How do you know if that's true? We simply don't know, so just let the market work things out, give consumers the freedom to choose for themselves. They're already doing that using flash blockers and moving to support HTML5 and/or other things.
People that don't like Flash, or any other plugin for that matter, don't have to see it or use it, there's no force involved whatsoever.
You're confusing the Internet with the web.
Incorrect.
Wow, that looks very cool! I hadn't heard of that product, thanks for the link!
This looks quite interesting as well: http://smokescreen.us/
This looks quite interesting as well: http://smokescreen.us/
Very cool indeed! Thanks for the link.
Human ingenuity is amazing, I was wondering if/when someone would come up with something like that. I know there's a lot of Adobe hate out there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they created something like that in the future. I would think they're going to need to in order to stay competitive and profitable.
I pretty much agree with you here, and I'd love an alternative for most of the things Flash is used for, heck all of them if that's possible without some sort of plugin.
But the thing I don't understand is why you, and many other, assume that everyone else will "be much happier". How do you know if that's true? We simply don't know, so just let the market work things out, give consumers the freedom to choose for themselves. They're already doing that using flash blockers and moving to support HTML5 and/or other things.
People that don't like Flash, or any other plugin for that matter, don't have to see it or use it, there's no force involved whatsoever.
Well, the market will sort it out, and they do have the freedom to choose for themselves: to buy an iPhone or iPad or not, for example. We haven't been discussing the mechanism of how Flash and other plug-ins will be obsoleted, just why or why not it's desirable.