Flash vs Apple

-

Simplicity and complexity in design have been following each other for ages. Oversimplification to be functional lose its function in the end. Similarly, making something overly complex to personalize leads to lack of characterization. The reason behind sameness in design is to implement a mainstream approach overly or gratuitously. But does it cause from the misperception of designers or the boundaries that design tools set?

***

In 1996, Macromedia acquired a vector-based web animation tool called FutureSplash, originally released in 1993. By 2009, Adobe announced that this tool -Flash - was installed on 99% of internet-connected desktop PCs. It grew because it filled a gap. Animations, video, sound, and interactivity were launched to web by dint of Adobe. But it is said that Adobe failed to capture the world of mobile devices, even with its efforts like Flash Lite.

When the iPhone came out, Flash wasn't quite ready. But also, I think Apple wanted to create an Apple-only ecosystem. (David Mendels, Former Executive Vice President of Products at Adobe)

Jobs (2010) knocked Flash for being proprietary, sapping battery power, not supporting multitouch interfaces, and posing security risks. "Flash is the No. 1 reason Macs crash," he said, but also added the main reason is that Apple refuses to be beholden to another organization's programming foundation.

Former Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen called it a "smokescreen". (2010) He stated there are more than 100 applications available built with Adobe's tool to translate Flash apps into native iPhone apps and it shows Apple's objections have "nothing to do with technology." He added "for every one of Apple’s accusations, there is proprietary lock-in" that block Adobe from fixing it.

***

Web accessibility in all devices in an increasingly mobile world was crucial for developers. Therefore, the subsequent popularity of the Apple products provoked the vanishment of Flash.Although Google was willingly allied with Adobe against Apple in the Flash debate and implemented Flash on Android operating system, Google also let Flash down in the end of the day. (2012) and Facebook, Microsoft, Firefox followed Google.

Google is happy to be partnering with Adobe to bring the full Web, great applications, and developer choice to the Android platform. (Andy Rubin, Android engineering leader, 2010)


Comments

  1. GoncaDecember 8, 2021 at 2:53 AM

    2011: Adobe began transitioning away from Flash for Mobile to focus on HTML5.
    2017: Facebook moved hundreds of games over to HTML5.
    2018: Microsoft began asking Edge users permission to run Flash content, and by 2020 prevented all Flash from running in Edge and Internet Explorer.
    2019: Firefox disabled Flash by default for most of its users and stopped the plugin from loading in 2021 when Adobe ended support.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GoncaDecember 8, 2021 at 3:01 AM

    Flash Content in 2021

    BlueMaxima’s Flashpoint is dubbed a “web game preservation project”, designed to archive tens of thousands of Flash-based browser games that were popular around the turn of the century and onwards. That project distributes its own, open-source and “secure” player software, which means fans should still be able to access those games when the big shutdown starts.

    There’s also a project called Ruffle, which attempts to emulate Flash. It can be run as a standalone application on most major operating systems or as a browser app through the use of the WebAssembly programming language. It’s primarily aimed at website owners who can install it server-side and have their Flash content “just work” natively.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

seeking the outside |a new perspective

-
It's nothing new that day by day contemporary design outputs look more alike . There is a considerable amount of sameness , but the problematic part is so little questioning of why. The designer is offered countless possibilities thanks to the developing technology and is expected to produce experimental works. On the contrary, we are in a period full of designs that will soon be impossible to distinguish one from the other. Besides the visual exhaustion, this absence of an experimental design process causes less expressive creation but more blindly copying. It seems like the limits of technology expand, the limits of our imagination shrink. One of the main reasons behind this monopoly is the aesthetic monoculture launched by the trendsetters like Apple, Facebook, and Google. In one of her interviews, Amy Standen states “There are consequences, both social and aesthetic, of a web that’s increasingly dominated by big corporations trying to sell us stuff. Aesthetically, it means le
Read more

simplifying, but why?

-
Simplicity reduces things to the essence, but this is not its priority in design. The foundation of simplification in design is based on Vitruvius’ principles and Industrial Revolution is its milestone. Centuries before Europe, division of labor - as a primitive mass production - was practiced in China. The Venetian Arsenal (1104) also operated similarly to a production line, but it is industrial manufacturing that is associated with simplification. After Industrial Revolution (1760), mass manufacturing supplanted craftsmanship, and Ford's methods (1913) were quickly adopted by other industries. Assembly lines necessitated the standardization of affordable goods to the average person. Therefore, simplicity occurred. Peter Behrens, Raymond Loewy, Louise Sullivan are the pioneers who address it as a functional way of design and production. Form (ever) follows function. (Sullivan, 1896) The major use of tall buildings was office work, as a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution.
Read more