Flash Player: Apple's Blind Spot?

I think the news that Flash is coming to smartphones over the next year is a big deal. Most of the rich media experiences I have on the web are in Flash (ADBE). YouTube's success had a lot to do with its choice of Flash for its video player. Now almost every video site on the web uses a Flash video player. The same is true of audio. It used to be that when you wanted to listen to streaming audio, you had to use Windows Media Player, the Real Player, or a link to iTunes, but all that's gone, thanks again to Flash. Whether it's last.fm, Pandora, most radio station web streams, or hypemachine, you are listening via Flash.

I have been able to port most of my web activity pretty seamlessly to a smartphone, either iPhone or Blackberry (RIMM). But the one thing I've not been able to replicate is the seamless experiences of watching video or listening to streaming audio on my phone (downloading an app to listen to music is not seamless). I realize that the mobile networks may not yet be ready for hundreds of millions of people watching or listening to streaming media on their smartphones, but they will be someday and getting Flash onto smartphones is going to accelerate the demand for this.

It's also true that a lot of the interesting new desktop apps like Twhirl and Tweetdeck are written for AIR, Flash's runtime cousin for the desktop. I'd love to have apps like this on my smartphone too.

So it's very exciting to me that Flash is making a big move over the next year onto smartphones. I'm also very excited to see Nokia (NOK) and Adobe creating the Open Screen Project and Open Screen Fund to promote an open and consistent experience for web browsing and mobile apps across mobile devices. The mobile web needs to be just like the web for innovation to flourish and capital to flow.

Which takes me back to the title of this post. I believe Apple is making a mistake by snubbing Adobe's desire to get Flash on the iPhone. And I believe Apple doesn't share in Adobe and Nokia's vision of an open and consistent experience for web browsing and mobile apps. It seems to me that Apple is interested in replicating the iTunes/iPod strategy it used to dominate digital music and the mobile web.

I don't think that will work. In fact, I don't think the iTunes/iPod strategy has much life left in it. Things like Pandora, MySpace Music, music blogging, and other forms of streaming music will eventually chip away at that franchise. But leaving the digital music situation alone for the moment, the mobile web is not going to be dominated by a single device and a single app ecosystem. I don't even think an app ecosystem is the long term solution for the mobile web. It's a bridge environment that allows for rich experiences on devices that don't have reliable high bandwidth connections yet.

But the mobile web will eventually just be the web. And a big part of getting it there is to get the tools that allow us to seamlessly consume rich media on the web onto mobile devices. To me that means Flash. I'm rooting for Adobe and its allies like Nokia and Palm (PALM) (and hopefully Blackberry) to win this game. If they do, we'll all be much better off because of it.

Comments

[scimitar:]

I disagree with you completely, Fred - Flash is an abomination that deserves to be snubbed by Apple. It's bloated, proprietary, and full of exploitable security flaws that put the end user at risk.

But just like PDF, I fear it is a standard that will endure despite its obvious failings. What a mess.

Feb 17 02:28 AM

[PalinTologist:]

<<In fact, I don't think the iTunes/iPod strategy has much life left in it.>>

okay, big boy. since you've got a better idea, i'm sure you'll have apple's ear.

but , given the fact that you're FRED WILSON, you've already got aapl, ne, the WORLD's attention. you go, boyfriend.

Feb 17 02:36 AM

[Sachin Agarwal:]

Flash video is terrible quality, even in the new "HD" variations. Media delivered in Quicktime formats is much higher quality. Apple is a stickler for high quality, and they are going to resist a low quality standard as much as possible.

But Apple is not dumb. I predict they will support flash eventually. They will use the excuse that flash performance on mobile devices became better than it was (maybe that's true, i dont know). They will say quality has improved.

Whatever the reason, they will have to do it when people demand to watch Hulu on their phones. But for the record, I wish flash had lost and quicktime had won for video on the web. People would have much higher quality standards. Youtube "HD" isn't even as good as an original DVD.

Feb 17 03:59 AM

[BJMC:]

In the early days of iPhone/iPod Touch I would have agreed with you.

Since then, I do not have Flash issues for what I have learned to use the devices for at all and web pages are rarely left with vacant Flash place holders.

The early issue on incorporation of Flash in addition to security is that it is a resource hog in terms of processing cycles, memory and bandwidth. The current solution for mobile, Flash Lite, is a very poor experience on any high resolution mobile device screen. If you can look at resource use on your Desktop or Laptop, try running Flash web pages and you will see the issue.

Flash as we know it is not suitable for these devices. Devices will stall, batteries will expire and the ubiquitous use will saturate carriers networks.

You Tube works perfectly well on the iPhone. Browser based BBC iPlayer in the UK works perfectly well over Wi-Fi and iPod Movies are superb.

Adoption of in progress web standards will allow for the incorporation and playing of video of various formats within a web page more easily. The SDK provided by Apple is also much more suitable for resident multi media applications.

I suggest to you that the non Flash use gripes about the iPhone are, well, just gripes. Apple is absolutely right to hold out on this unless a workable, in all respects, solution can be hammered out. Already, through the extent of mobile web use, Apple is the standard if any and it is doing this largely through using web standards. Flash is not a standard even if its use is ubiquitous on PC platforms.

Feb 17 04:05 AM

[Kontra:]

Flash versus Open

Perhaps one thing we can all agree on is that the future of the web, mobile or otherwise, will be more or less open. That would be HTML, MP3, H.264, HE-AAC, and so on. These are not proprietary Adobe products, they are open standards…unlike Flash.

In confusing codecs with UI, Wilson keeps asking, “why is it tha[t] most streaming audio and video on the web comes through flash players and not html5 based players?” The answer is rather pedestrian: HTML5 is just ramping up, but Flash IDE has been around for many years. Selling Flash IDE and back-end server tools has been a commercial focus for Adobe, while Apple, for example, hasn’t paid much attention to QuickTime technologies and promotion in ages. It’s thus reflected in adoption patterns.

Hopefully, this summary will clear Wilson’s blind spot:

Apple is betting on open technologies (as it makes money on hardware) while Adobe (which only sells software) is betting on wrapping up content in a proprietary shackle called Flash.

From:

Does "A VC" have a blind spot for Apple?
counternotions.com/200.../

Feb 17 06:08 AM

[Stephen Str...:]

Flash is constrained by being rigid and limited by Adobe's imagination. The solution I prefer is to use Java.

Using Java means that not only is the solution genuinely cross platform, but safe and secure and open to improvement by anyone. Most codec formats are patented, but Java implementations need not be. Different companies can produce codecs and services for different niches, instead of the one-size-fits-all Flash solution.

As an example of the flexibility provided by Java, my company provides professional quality Java video post-production (eg editing) tools to television broadcasters and production companies around the world - running entirely in a browser without installation, configuration of security permissions. This is simply not possible in a Flash based system.

It's a pity that Apple have not provided Java for the iPhone, as if they had, all iPhone users would have access to frame accurate video editing AND publishing!

Feb 17 08:11 AM

[Daniel Luedtke:]

Apple might just think that the basis for future rich web content ought to be determined by companies more competent than Pudknocker's like Adobe, Microsoft, Nokia, etc. Just use some Adobe products on the Mac. They are universally lame, work worse than the equivalent products under Windows and it's been this way for a long while. At this point in time Adobe is going to have to prove themselves to Apple, not Apple having to kiss-up to Adobe.

Secondly, you might not realize where the iPhone/iPod world is heading. Soon enough Intel will make low-powered chips that compete with the ARM based parts that Apple now uses. They have to do this and they know it (having given up their fling of Pudknocker-dom of 5 years back). This new chip will use the Intel x386-64 bit architecture. Essentially OS-X, from laptops and desktops will run on it, and whatever miserable version of Flash that then exists will just run (after 1-2 years of Adobe removing/changing stupid no good reason for doing it that way, idiotic code). The current phone is already running a more than 50% complete OS-X on the ARM chip.

I'm hoping Adobe tanks, and when it's cheap, Apple picks over the corpse. Same with Sun.

Daniel Luedtke

Feb 17 09:37 AM

[Edge_Jeff:]

Here's my issue with flash; I have a data plan for my smartphone, and loading webpages without the flash components means I'm never in danger of going (the extra fees are ridiculous). But with flash sites, much of the content, ads, sometimes the ENTIRE site, is built in to download automatically, whether I visit those parts or not. I did a mirror test for just 10 minutes before sending this comments, my phone, and this laptop visiting the same sites. the laptop brought down almost 10mb ! (That surprised even me), while my phone only brought down just under 1.5mb.

I'll be happy to have flash once this idiocy is adressed, but given that it's really just a way for programmers to hide the workings of their sites, I'm not missing it.

Feb 17 09:38 AM

[vassar:]

Flash stinks. Thank god for the [skip] button!

Feb 17 10:20 AM

[winindthedust:]

Completely correct Kontra!

Flash will go the way of the tape player and VHS tape. (In Tech, that's what it is, compared to what's available today)

Additionally, YouTube uses OPEN H.264, not Flash. Google did this once the iPhone came out. Flash is old proprietary technology which is no way superior to H.264, HTML-4, MPEG4, AAC, etc. The web has a lot of clean up to do, but the motivations are now there to do it.

iTunes, Apple, & Google are all about supporting the open standards and codecs.

Cheers!


On Feb 17 06:08 AM Kontra wrote:

> Flash versus Open
>
> Perhaps one thing we can all agree on is that the future of the web,
> mobile or otherwise, will be more or less open. That would be HTML,
> MP3, H.264, HE-AAC, and so on. These are not proprietary Adobe products,
> they are open standards…unlike Flash.
>
> In confusing codecs with UI, Wilson keeps asking, “why is it tha[t]
> most streaming audio and video on the web comes through flash players
> and not html5 based players?” The answer is rather pedestrian: HTML5
> is just ramping up, but Flash IDE has been around for many years.
> Selling Flash IDE and back-end server tools has been a commercial
> focus for Adobe, while Apple, for example, hasn’t paid much attention
> to QuickTime technologies and promotion in ages. It’s thus reflected
> in adoption patterns.
>
> Hopefully, this summary will clear Wilson’s blind spot:
>
> Apple is betting on open technologies (as it makes money on hardware)
> while Adobe (which only sells software) is betting on wrapping up
> content in a proprietary shackle called Flash.
>
> From:
>
> Does "A VC" have a blind spot for Apple?
> counternotions.com/200.../

Feb 17 10:37 AM

[sleepy:]

Others have given important reason why this article is nonsense (Flash is proprietary, a bandwidth and performance hog, and flash ads major irritation when browsing, even on a fast PC with broadband).

I'll add that, just as Apple left out 3G for battery life reasons on the original iPhone, it's still leaving out Flash for performance and battery life reasons on the current iPhone. Flash would be a bad idea for both users and carriers on the current iPhone, even if it's a good idea on some fast new phone.

For a new iPhone with faster CPU (like Palm Pre's CPU), implementing Flash is just a simple management decision for Apple, if they ever decide to do it. But still a bad idea overall.

Feb 17 10:49 AM

[FreeRange:]

Great posts here... thanks to all for your insight. Not mentioned is the other player in there trying to whore up the market - MSFT with Silverlight. Hopefully the lazy, unimaginative, .net development community will stall and this albatross will not take hold.

Feb 17 11:10 AM

[MarkOlson:]

Actually reports are that Apple and Adobe are working on flash for the iPhone. What Apple has snubbed is a stripped-down version of Flash.

Feb 17 12:38 PM

[waf76:]

MarkOlson,

Yes they have been working on this since the 3G came out. Flash will probably be on the iPhone at some point but even if it isn't there is always the next killer app!

Feb 17 07:26 PM

[KenC:]

Someone has an unhealthy obsession with Flash. He also seems to confuse Flash Lite with Flash.

Remember Apple skates to where the puck will be, not where it's been. The future of the internet will marginalize Flash. It may be ubiquitous today, but it's not a standard and three of the biggest players are actively trying to marginalize it, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

The future of computing is about efficiency and standards. Flash is neither. It's a dinosaur, like Internet Explorer. Look to the future not the past.

Feb 17 09:15 PM

[Stephen Str...:]

KenC - yes - standards. But there are two types of standards.

Type 1 is the "You have to do it my way, which by the way I have patented" type of standard. This is the restrictive standard. Many video formats are like this (Even Ogg video is a bit like this, but at least it is free).

Type 2 is the "You can do anything you like, and I will provide the infrastructure for you". This is the enabling standard. This is like providing the roads and letting people have any type of car, and drive where they like. The internet is like this too - you can attach any type of device and send any type of data.

Java is like this too. You can have any video codec implemented in Java. You don't have to have restrict yourself to video codecs either - you can essentially have any software implemented in Java, and it will work in any browser. Still standard, still cross platform, still no installation - but now flexible.

The problem with Flash is that it is a type 1 standard, just like WMP, MPEG and all these systems. They are all too prescriptive, and you need to keep upgrading the underlying technology to upgrade your system. To upgrade your set top box from MPEG 1 to MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 you may need to upgrade the hardware.

Luckily, on computers, there is no need to upgrade the roads every time a new car comes along - because type 2 standards such as Java are widely distributed. You can, for example, distribute your latest codec with your video without upgrading any installed software at negligible data cost.

As the world moved from 1990s Desktop installed software (such as Word) to 2000s Web software (such as Google, Ebay, Amazon and this site), the next great switch (2010s?) could well be to much more sophisticated web applications - only possible if the workload is moved from a limited number of central servers to an auto-scaling number of clients through web standards such as Java.

Feb 19 04:11 PM