Adobe vs. Apple vs. Flash
What strange timing for this spat between tech titans Apple and Adobe. Apple introduces the Flash-hostile iPad, which needs Flash functionality in the worst way if it hopes to have any relevance as a video delivery device, and then starts a philosophical catfight with the software company who has a monopoly of the most dynamic applications for their computing platform. Makes little sense.
But like most things in the business world that make little sense on the outside, it probably makes the most pragmatic kind of sense on the inside. This whole thing smacks of some kind of front for a deal of some kind - licensing, partnership, merger, acquisition, or some such corporate body sculpting. As only the very tight inner circles at these companies are privy to the real story, I won't even guess as what the final dénouement will be. But I'll bet that in under six months time Apple and Adobe will kiss and make up and we'll have some kind of Flash license in place for the newest Apple devices, or an Adobe-created workaround to accomplish the same end.
What is more interesting to me is how Flash got to be in the middle of this in the first place. Originally created by Silicon Beach Software as FutureSplash, the application was created to be a motion graphics delivery system using vector drawing objects to save on memory and deliver fast motion performance in the pre-broadband era. Almost from the beginning, the media produced by FutureSplash/Flash was confused with "video" by all but the designers and developers who worked with the application. The difference between line-art vector and pixel-based raster graphics were lost on most people. It moved, it had sound, it was designed on a timeline - of course it must be "video". What's the difference?
To meet these expectations Macromedia created the FLV format. This enabled those looking to add true video to the user experience of their websites the ability to mount video files of various codecs on a web page using existing Flash plug-ins. It was inscrutable to program, clunky to implement and buggy - but in terms of browser compatibility, it worked better than most methods of adding video to the web, so it was widely adopted.
The system's design under Adobe is still pretty much the same today. It's the backbone of how YouTube's video display is coded, which is why it's such a hot topic in this Apple/Adobe argument. No Flash, no YouTube - and YouTube is gaining such popularity as an entertainment medium that its omission from the iPad leaves a gaping hole in the device's desirability which other manufacturers can easily step through and steal market share.
Apple's cover story is that they reject that Flash application because it's a closed system, open standards for development are what they support, etc. etc. But I think Steve Jobs is too shrewd to just lose customers over what are to most people arcane philosophical programming concepts. That's why I think there will be some deal cut to integrate Flash into the iPad at least as a bridge to something else down the road.
As a Flash developer I'd be happy to see this dispute change the game and get Flash to its roots as a wonderful interactive vector animation authoring tool. Develop another app/solution to de-babelize video filetypes and for cross-browser compatibility and concentrate on enhancing Flash's 3D capability, scripting and drawing tools. There are animators and web designers who have gotten stunning results when using Flash in its strong areas and I would hate to see this whole poker game between Jobs and Adobe Inc. spell the ruin of such a fine application.
