Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple

Flash Is Not a Right 850

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the so-very-hungry dept.
medcalf notes that game designer Ian Bogost enters the debate about Flash by saying "[A] large number of developers seem to think that they have the right to make software for the iPhone (or for anything else) in Flash, or in another high-level environment of their choosing. Literally, the right, not just the convenience or the opportunity. And many of them are quite churlish about the matter. This strikes me as a very strange sort of attitude to adopt. There's no question that Flash is useful and popular, and it has a large and committed user base. There's also no question that it's often convenient to be able to program for different platforms using environments one already knows. And likewise, there's a long history of creating OS stubs or wrappers or other sorts of gizmos to make it possible to run code 'alien' to a platform in a fashion that makes it feel more native. But what does it say about the state of programming practice writ large when so many developers believe that their 'rights' are trampled because they cannot write programs for a particular device in a particular language? Or that their 'freedom' as creators is squelched for the same reason?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flash Is Not a Right

Comments Filter:
  • That's what happens when you choose a closed platform.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:23PM (#32113368)

      That's what happens when you choose a closed platform.

      You mean Flash?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:25PM (#32113400)

        That's what happens when you choose a closed platform.

        You mean Flash?

        Yo dawg, we heard you like closed platforms...

      • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:27PM (#32113450) Journal

        Flash may be proprietary itself, but there's a large extent to which it doesn't dictate what you can do with it.

        Apple dictates what software you can develop for their mobile products to an absurd level -- everything from what tools you may use to what kind of morality is appropriate (no porn for you).

        I don't like either of them, and I am glad to see Apple kill Flash, but I despise the way they're doing it.

        • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:34PM (#32113646) Homepage

          Just keep this in mind: Apple used Fairplay DRM to kill the use of WMA and DRM in the music industry. Apple's insanity isn't all bad.

          • by DRJlaw (946416) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:59PM (#32115390)

            Just keep this in mind: Apple used Fairplay DRM to kill the use of WMA and DRM in the music industry. Apple's insanity isn't all bad.

            Apple also refused to license Fairplay DRM, which ment that the music that you puchased from iTunes could only realistically be played on Apple devices (Quicktime/Itunes on a PC is not a significant exception). WMA DRM locked you into certain devices, but not only Microsoft-marketed devices. That insanity is "all bad."

            BTW: Fairplay did not kill DRM in the music industry. Amazon [wikipedia.org] killed DRM in the music industry.

            • by s73v3r (963317) <s73v3r @ g m a i l.com> on Thursday May 06, 2010 @03:21PM (#32115748)
              Actually, yes, you were. WMA DRM locked you into using Windows. So one could argue it was just as bad.
              • by jedidiah (1196) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @03:35PM (#32115974) Homepage

                > Actually, yes, you were. WMA DRM locked you into using Windows. So one could argue it was just as bad.

                Except Windows represents a multi-vendor platform just like Flash does.

                The key difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Microsoft wants their stuff used far and wide and don't want to p*ss off the developers.

                At the end of the day, there is some value to platforms that started out by catering to developers.

                The rube-on-the-street might not think it's obvious, but he benefits from the efforts of those that do.

                All technological liberty boils down to this.

                • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @03:51PM (#32116210)

                  Except Windows represents a multi-vendor platform just like Flash does.

                  Which is incredibly ironic IMHO. We spent the better part of a decade railing against Microsoft for being a closed/proprietary system. As an Linux user, that seems obvious. I can get my software from any group (currently Ubuntu, but if they piss me off I can go to Fedora if I like - worse comes to worse I COULD go LFS), and I also can get my hardware from any group.

                  Microsoft is a step down. You have to buy the software from them, but at least you get your own choice on hardware.

                  Apple is the worst. It's their software, their hardware, and their rules.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by dangitman (862676)

              Apple also refused to license Fairplay DRM, which ment that the music that you puchased from iTunes could only realistically be played on Apple devices

              And that is exactly why we eventually got DRM-free music from the major labels. The labels were getting uneasy about Apple's unanticipated power in the marketplace.

              WMA DRM locked you into certain devices, but not only Microsoft-marketed devices.

              Which is even worse in many ways. What Apple did with DRM only affected their own platform. Microsoft, on the other hand, could act as a market bully and affect third parties. And it did indeed pull the rug out from under those third parties with the abandonment of "Plays For Sure."

              BTW: Fairplay did not kill DRM in the music industry. Amazon [wikipedia.org] killed DRM in the music industry.

              Incorrect. Jobs called from DRM to end, and actually had DRM-free

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Blakey Rat (99501)

            Apple only killed off DRM when Amazon started selling music with no DRM at lower prices than Apple. It was a reactionary move.

            • by drcagn (715012) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @04:10PM (#32116508) Homepage
              No, Apple wanted to not use DRM from the beginning, but the record labels were too afraid to do that (the selling music online industry was in its infancy, especially for the mainstream). Once Apple got too big, it got to call the shots because it controlled the iTunes Music Store (and thus almost all of downloadable music) and the record labels resented that because they wanted to increase prices. The industry only gave way on the DRM issue because they needed to create a competitor to Apple, so they did so by giving Amazon permission for DRM-free distribution. Then Apple negotiated and had a trade-off: they got rights to higher quality files without DRM in exchange for giving the labels the variable pricing scheme that iTunes now has.
        • by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:02PM (#32114304) Homepage

          They go farther than that. Try and write an iPhone app under linux. They demand you use their hardware and their OS as well.

    • by EvilNTUser (573674) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:32PM (#32113610)

      That's what happens when you choose a closed platform.

      Exactly, but TFA is one big strawman. The argument is that closed platforms are bad, not that open platforms are a right. We can call Apple assholes without trying to revoke their business license.

      Hell, I hate Flash too. But there's a huge difference between not actively supporting a technology and doing your best to ensure people can't use it even when they want to.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sakdoctor (1087155)

      I read the title as "Flash is not right". A more appealing as well as truthful title all round.

    • by sbeckstead (555647) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:53PM (#32114066) Homepage Journal
      I don't really think you guys know what you mean by a "Closed Platform". Flash is just as closed as anything Apple or Microsoft puts out there. The development tools cost more and the capabilities are stifled in comparison to native tools on any system that Flash runs on.
      • Flash is just as closed as anything Apple or Microsoft puts out there.

        Nope. Flash is closed-source. Apple is both closed-source and closed-access, which is a very different thing.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by danomac (1032160)

          Nope. Flash is closed-source. Apple is both closed-source and closed-access, which is a very different thing.

          Yep. Maybe that's why they use "Think different" as a slogan? That could be what they're referring to.

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:01PM (#32114274) Homepage

      My take on the whole thing is "WAH" if you dont like it then dont code for the closed platform. There is a huge Android platform that would really like some more great apps to compete with apple's head start.

      Plus android based tablets are actually already here (I have had an android based tablet for a year now. I installed Android X86 on a older tablet PC. works great.

      I agree, you dont like it, then dont code for it.

      but I dont see anyone writing Symbian apps with Flash. And symbian phone sales outnumber the iPhones and all android phones put together.

      • by jythie (914043) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:36PM (#32114966)
        The Symbian point is an important one. While Apple is getting a lot of flack for this (because people just love hating Apple), this is pretty normal practice for embedded devices like cell phones. Crow, Apple is being a hell of a lot more open then many of the networks have been over the years. Ever try publishing something for, say, Verizon branded phones? I think this is what is pissing me off so much about this entire discussion.... people are taking what is a normal and sane buisness practice and, because it is Apple, throwing a fit.
  • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:24PM (#32113392)

    Using your own device in whatever manner you wish is your right!

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:26PM (#32113426) Homepage Journal

      Yea and you can write the program and use it on the iPhone with any tool you want.
      You just can not sell it in their store.
      But you can use it on your phone all you want.

      • Provided... (Score:3, Insightful)

        You can do that, provided you pay for their development kit (isn't that a yearly subscription?), or jailbreak your own phone.

        • Re:Provided... (Score:4, Informative)

          by WilyCoder (736280) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:40PM (#32113754)

          The devkit is free but you are limited to using the iPhone simulator. If you want to dump your code to an actual device then you need to pay the $99 fee.

    • by jcheezem (96097) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:27PM (#32113470)

      True - but look at the end user agreement for the software.

      You don't own it.

  • by medcalf (68293) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:30PM (#32113542) Homepage
    is Ian's discussion of creativity in programming, and whether platform limitations enhance or retard that creativity, and in what ways.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:30PM (#32113552) Journal

    Flash Is Not a Right

    There seems to be some confusion here. I don't recall the argument being that developers thought it was a right, the argument was that it is a tool that is useful and can probably run with little effort on Apple's mobile devices. So it was perceived that Apple was deliberately stunting some developers. Now, I think Java's been outlawed as well so you should be just as upset about that. Now, as a consumer, the iPad is right out of the question as here we have two empowering functionalities disabled for no apparent reason on my device. And it looks like they're going to do everything they can to stop Java and Flash from ever running on iPads.

    The outcry is not that Apple is revoking a right but simply that they are deliberately crippling a product ... and for what reason? Well, Jobs gives a few reasons but a lot of people assume it's marketshare and money. I happen to side with the latter group and find that despicable under the assumption that it would not take much to get Java or Flash running on an iPad.

    Couple the above with the fact that there are a lot of social games out there and lightweight games running Flash already that might have hoped the iPad would just automagically support their game and I think you understand why there's so much backlash for lack of Flash. It's not a right but it lack of Flash on the iPad is a wet blanket to many.

    • by jjoelc (1589361) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:57PM (#32114160)

      Couple the above with the fact that there are a lot of social games out there and lightweight games running Flash already that might have hoped the iPad would just automagically support their game

      You just inadvertently stated exactly what I have been thinking all along... There are a lot of people who have a lot of existing apps written in flash. There is a lot of money floating around the iPhone/iPad app store right now, so that is where they want to be. What they don't seem to want to do is put any more work into all of these existing apps to optimize them in any way shape or form for the platform. They want to just press a button that says "compile for iPhone/iPad" and start rolling in the money...

      It doesn't work that way. Odds are that you chose to program in flash because it was the hot field. There was a lot of work and money and opportunity in that area, so that is where you went. Now the money and opportunity are somewhere else, and you are complaining that you have to learn something new or do something different to get access to it? Sorry charlie...

      If you are looking to follow the fads, expect to change brand names regularly. How many of you are still wearing your parachute pants?

    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:10PM (#32114488) Homepage

      The outcry is not that Apple is revoking a right but simply that they are deliberately crippling a product ... and for what reason?

      There are apparently a number of reasons and Jobs gave them. You may not like those reasons, and you may think those reasons are stupid, but I don't really see a lot in the way of grounds to disbelieve that those are the main reasons. To boil it down to what's probably the biggest reason: Apple *wants* developers to develop apps specifically for the iPhone/iPad because they believe they'll get better apps that way. They don't particularly want cross platform apps that have been ported over, because Apple's belief is that they'll get flooded with tons and tons of crappy applications that don't work well and don't take good advantage of their devices' capabilities.

      Personally, I think a lot of this anger against Apple for refusing to allow Flash comes from two factors: latent anti-Apple sentiments and successful astroturfing by Adobe. You have tons and tons of people who, a few monts or a year ago, would be complaining loudly about how Flash is a horrible blight on the free Internet, and instead today they're complaining about Apple's evil plot to damage the beautiful and perfect Flash platform by forcing people to use the terrible proprietary H264 format. It's kind of dumb.

      If you want to complain about Apple's lock-down, I say go ahead, but pick some better examples. Let's talk about the fact that they're still using DRM on their video purchases. Let's talk about how they rejected the Google Voice app. Let's talk about how you can't put the iPhone or iPad into "disk mode" and copy your files on and off. Those are all instances where Apple is actually restricting functionality. But Flash? Apple's doing us a favor. They're not saying, "You can't build an application that does [such and such]." They're saying you can't build an application using a crappy tool that crashes constantly and causes everyone various problems.

  • by xclay (924789) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:31PM (#32113592) Homepage
    The new popularism around entitlement for the betterment of one's own convenience or laziness has been around since they invented computers, it's no surprise.
  • by seanalltogether (1071602) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:37PM (#32113706)
    think again [craftymind.com]
  • Skirting the issue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dpilot (134227) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:37PM (#32113710) Homepage Journal

    Bogust suggests that cross-platform software may be making developers lazy, and turning software into one big cross-platform monoculture.

    That may be true, but he's missing the real issue. As long as those products are viewed as some sort of computing device, one expects them to do what computing devices do, and the hardware is capable of that. Computing devices, those that are Turing complete, are general purpose. The platform may impose constraints like speed and memory - consider them to be challenges. (limitations by another name)

    No, the real issue here is that one buys a piece of hardware which is a general purpose computing device, with very livable hardware constraints.
    THEN the provider artificially constrains that system.

    Here's the issue another way...
    We're used to buying physical things, which become ours, and we can do with as we please.
    We're used to buying books, movies, and music, and understand that we're not supposed to make illegitimate copies of them. (The question of what constitutes "illegitimate" is a quagmire, of course.)

    More and more physical things come with embedded computing devices. Those embedded computing devices run software. Those who wrote the software are making more obvious limitations upon the "permissible" use of that hardware that is shipped with their software.

    The iStuff wasn't the beginning of this trend, merely the current, most blatant example. But remember, it's getting hard to find any item of significance that doesn't have some sort of embedded computing these days. Imagine if practically everything you buy comes with license restrictions. artificially limiting what you can do with the product, enhancing the makers' revenue streams, etc. Since I have "car analogy" in my signature, imagine a car (with built-in GPS, of course) that starts bucking, misfiring, and generally misbehaving when you drive into a non-dealer repair or aftermarket accessory shop.

  • Why does this strike me that this is more about a bunch of so-called, "developers," who are getting all huffy about not being able to easily whack out Whack-A-Mole and Fart apps for the i(Pad|Touch|Phone), than about a true fight for a "right" to develop as you please? So develop stuff in Flash -- you just won't be able to publish it via these devices. Why is this a big surprise? It's not as if Apple's hidden the fact that Flash isn't supported. It's not like you USED to be able to use it and now you can't -- they've been VERY open about their dick-waving with Adobe.

    Hey -- I want it to have Flash, too. I'd like to have a Ferrari, but it's just not in the cards, ya know?

    A million baby entrepreneurs thought that the iPad would SURELY have to allow the use of Flash and they were already counting the stacks of bills in their minds garnered from the various apps they were going to whack out in a hurry using Flash; now that dream has been shattered and they're getting all surly about it. Wah.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by John Whitley (6067)

      It's not as if Apple's hidden the fact that Flash isn't supported. It's not like you USED to be able to use it and now you can't -- they've been VERY open about their dick-waving with Adobe.

      This also falls on Adobe -- it's not as if they've been able to run full-fledged Flash content at production quality on any mobile device yet either. I have to admit to a sense of teapot-tempest over "Apple sez you can't have what doesn't even exist yet!"

      And w.r.t. the closed/open meme-wars going on: I decidedly don't hear the sounds of these same developers chucking their {PS3,Wii,XBox}'es into the dumpster over their "ev1l closed platformedness." Console platforms have traditionally had heavy restrictio

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by broken_chaos (1188549)

      Have you played some of the Flash games on websites like Newgrounds? Some of them are truly amazing games -- visually, stylistically, and from gameplay perspectives. Back when Adobe was doing their Flash compiler beta testing, developers of some of those games actually ported them to the iPhone and sold them, such as Canabalt (Newgrounds [newgrounds.com], iTunes store [apple.com]). (I'm surprised its still on the iTunes store, actually. Apple never has been consistent about implementing their rules, though...)

      These sort of ports are wh

  • by GameMaster (148118) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:47PM (#32113934)

    First off, IANAL but, In the US, we have anti-trust laws designed to stop companies from doing this kind of stuff. The don't, necessarily, require the company to have X% market-share before some of the laws apply. Has Apple crossed the line here? I don't know, I guess we'll find out when the recently announced legal issues resolve themselves. The point is that there are laws that limit how much a company can control what you do with a product you've purchase from them even when it comes to your future use of that product with their services. A prime example is in the automotive industry. Car makers aren't allowed to just void your warranty for not using "Ford" brand gasoline; "Ford" brand tires; "Ford" brand spark plugs; etc. They don't get to void the warranty just because you installed an after-market tail pipe or radio. From my perspective, I can see them having the right to refuse to host a Flash plug-in on the iTunes store (though, Microsoft's recent issues in the EU with providing a list of alternative browsers might suggest possible issues for Apple in the EU) but the thing I see as most contentious would be their refusal to allow anyone to install software onto the device that isn't provided through iTunes and their, active, banning of users that jailbreak their device. This is the behavior that I can see the US government/courts coming down hard on.

  • by zentec (204030) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .cetnez.> on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:49PM (#32113990)

    I don't consider it a misunderstanding over their "right", but a complete lack of understanding of the platform for which they want to develop. There's a lost art of having to program devices with limited memory and energy budgets. Thanks to the desktop, the solution wasn't to code more efficiently and have the developer bear the pain, it was just far easier to push it to the user in the form of more memory and faster processors. And yes, more energy.

    This can't be done on tiny devices, and the write-once run everywhere mantra comes at a hefty expense. I also agree with Jobs' point that high level abstractions and languages *do* reduce the application down to the lowest common denominator.

    At some point, Adobe and their peers will want to start putting their libraries inside the iPhone OS. We've all seen how intrusive and bloated Adobe Reader has become, that's just the kind of behavior I hope to avoid on my phone. Sure, Flash would be nice, but am I willing to get it at the cost of allowing Adobe to modify files in the OS? The alternative is that these Flash applications carry the necessary libraries with them and these simply Flash games are now pushing tens of megabytes in girth.

    Furthermore, where does it end? They permit Flash, then Java and hey what about .NET /CLR for applications? How about Visual Basic on the iPhone? Wait, that we've left out the Fortran programmers so we need to support them as well.

    Here's an idea. Instead of being a "Flash Developer", how about you just be a developer and understand that a language is a tool and like all tools, there's a right one for the job. Tiny device programming is a different art form, one of where less really is more and it isn't necessarily an easy world in which to work.

    Sorry to be a buzz kill.

  • Flashdance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by XiaoMing (1574363) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:53PM (#32114068)

    Yes, it's true that Flash is not a right. And yes, it's also true that by "choosing Apple" you're choosing a "closed system". But none of it get to the core issue.
    Why do people write software? Most people (aside from those that just do it for their own jollies) write software so that others can use it and share in its benefit. As for software corporations, there's a big financial aspect tied to the motivations, but the want for mass-consumption is still there.

    In this case, Adobe being such a crybaby about this situation is both an insult to Apple, but also a very big compliment. There is so much fear that the iPad will revolutionize... something (Granted I don't know what, as the most entertaining thing I've managed to get out of it is tapping flying Dragonballs to a musical beat) and become so ubuiquitous, that Adobe not being able to take part in it the way they've currently done with so many other forms of computing environments makes them throw e-hissy fits.

    But it's neither party's fault. Apple could just as easily fail, like so many others before them (including their younger self) at creating a tablet like device, and this entire argument would be moot. On the flip side, were flash able to take more than just the left mouse button (wait, why doesn't Apple like Flash again?) and anything other than Tab as an input; had Flash actually overran the internet, I'm sure Apple would have been more than happy to play along or make exceptions.

    I know there will be many who would argue whether the latter were true, but just look at Visa. They only went public _two_ years ago, but even before then they were THE name in plastic. Discover, MasterCard, AmEx? You had to ask if those would be accepted, after you saw a Visa logo on the door. There's nothing wrong with programming for a "closed" system, as long as everyone else is using it. But right now Apple just doesn't think Adobe has enough market share to be worth being "Open" for, and Adobe is scared Apple is on its way to becoming the next Visa.

  • Right To Read (Score:3, Informative)

    by the Atomic Rabbit (200041) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:59PM (#32114200)

    We're certainly on the road to the future spelled out here [gnu.org].

  • by Mathonwy (160184) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @01:59PM (#32114208)

    I don't think the problem is that apple is trampling someone's "rights". I think it is more that apple is just continuing to act like a dick. (Whcih shouldn't be a surprise, since the dickery of Steve Jobs is well documented.)

    I can't speak for others, but my personal beef is that apple is putting restrictions on the development process instead of the result.

    I have ZERO problem if they want to put restrictions on the result. "Your binary must adhere to these rules, and behave thusly." That's fine.

    I take great exception if they say how I can make it though. Saying "you can't use these tools" is silly. They shouldn't care what tools are used. To me, saying "you can't submit anything that was written in flash" makes exactly as much sense as saying "You can't submit anything that wasn't written by someone with blond hair."

    (And yes, I'm equally insensed about Java, Unity, or anything else, as I am about Flash.)

    Also I'm mostly annoyed by the obvious hippocracy that it shows on the part of apple. (Which again, really shouldn't surprise me by now, but meh.) Because as countless people have already pointed out, it basically outlaws a very large percentage of stuff that is already in the app store. No one REALLY expects apple to come down too hard on the non-flash things here. They are basically just issuing a law that makes it so EVERYONE who uses any kind of middleware is illegal, so they can pick and choose their enforcement to suit their whims. The app store approval process already has a wide reputation for capriousness. They already pick and choose apps to ban inconsistently, frequently refuse to provide reasons, and refuse to provide any real recourse, or point of contact. This is only going to make this problem worse.

    So yeah. I don't get mad at apple because I feel I have some "right" to use flash in particular. But I do feel that I have a "right" to develop using whatever tools I see fit, whether they be Adobe's products, or blond-haired employees, and that apple should get out of my business, and only concern themselves with my product.

    • by Late Adopter (1492849) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @04:29PM (#32116816)
      I agree 100% with your concern, that this is a scummy thing to do, that there is quesitonal moral ground for them to get involved with the process. But there is a legitimate motivation buried in there. Apple doesn't want to be in a situation where developers are relying on 3rd parties to push API enhancements. Imagine if when Apple released the 3GS a significant fraction of their developers couldn't write apps that used the compass, all because Adobe didn't get around to it for a week (a month? ever?).

      I don't think Apple's interested in having grounds to censor any particular app (they do that already), but making sure they can change things without worrying about 3rd party influence.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lehk228 (705449)
      Saying "you can't use these tools" is silly.

      it's not silly at all when the actual goal is to stifle innovation and competition by artificially raising the cost for developers to sell apps on other platforms like Android, WebOS, and windows mobile.



      this has nothing to do with app quality, if it did they would just continue to enforce or tighten up quality requirements before approving.
  • by UseCase (939095) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:03PM (#32114340)

    The more I read and talk to people (developers other than myself) about this issue the more I am beginning to realize that the outrage is more from companies who develop content for other larger companies than from developers. Most developers realize that they will have to learn new technologies, APIs, languages, paradigms, etc in there professional careers. In fact most developers expect things to change. From C to C++, Win32/MFC to .NET, Carbon to Cocoa (the list could go on) developers have been updating and reinventing themselves constantly to maintain viability.

    I think the outrage and expectation is coming from the media design and development companies used by large commercial companies to create web and kiosk applications. They do not want to spend the dollars to train there current staff on the new technologies and do not want to hire the talent necessary to move forward in the new platform ecosystem. They want the current set of technical expertise they have to remain eternally viable. Flash is the crutch that many of these types of companies lean on. It allows them the biggest bang for there buck and reduces the risk to them. These companies have nice work flows set up around flash and a huge set of already written action script code on which the can leverage new product on regardless of platform quickly.

    I think, the complaining and outrage will continue for the near future as these companies reorganize and rebuild there cpodebases to leverage the new technologies and platforms.

  • "programmers"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WoollyMittens (1065278) on Friday May 07, 2010 @01:02AM (#32122464)
    I find that most "programmers" that jumped on the internet bandwagon because of hype, are only capable of cutting and pasting code from Google into ready made frameworks. Having your framework yanked out from under you must be really scary in that case.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...