Disclaimer
OK, maybe I am on crazy pills since 98% of the reactions I’ve seen thus far have been positive, but I have some pretty serious reservations about this whole thing. I make a living developing for the Flash Platform via Flex, and have a great time doing it, so I am extremely invested (in most every sense of the word) in the success of the platform. I also have no business training or education and have only an outsider’s view of Adobe and the decisions the company makes. As such its entirely possible that some of what I say here may be completely wrong. If that is the case I apologize in advance and welcome any corrections.
Flash Players everywhere!
So one of the main benefits the project aims to create/claims to enable is the proliferation of Flash Player on a multitude of devices. The enabler of that proliferation, according to Adobe and others, is the removal of licensing fees and terms. Now when they say devices, they mean everything from cell phones to those fancy internet-enabled refrigerators nobody wants. In my opinion though, cell phones and UMPCs are what most people think of when the term “device” is used (and is what I mean by the term for the remainder of this article) and they easily represent the area with the largest potential for growth and impact.
But was licensing really what prevented Flash Player (the real deal, not Lite) from being found on devices to and fro? Up until Open Screen was announced I had never even heard such a thing suggested. The real reason, which seems suspiciously absent from discussion today, is that Flash Player is simply too memory and power intensive to run on most devices. Note this is absolutely not a knock against Flash Player, today’s devices are simply not very powerful and/or efficient. Maybe its just the initial excitement of the project but I find the complete lack of discussion of this major engineering hurdle perplexing.
Further evidence (in my mind) that its an engineering issue rather than a licensing issue is evident by looking at the partners listed on the project home page. Do you really think companies like Nokia, Samsung and Sony have any problem licensing technology they think will make their handsets more valuable? They’re not exactly short on cash, so if they find it valuable now they probably found it valuable a year ago. Yes, Adobe will be providing porting APIs which will help device manufacturers get the software running on their device, but thats not a silver bullet. Those porting APIs will be useless until there is a version of the player that can run in the first place within the power and memory constraints the device provides. Yes, I know about Tamarin-Tracing but everything I have read in regards to that points to it being a long way from production ready.
Financial aspects
This section is pure speculation but worth including I think. I also wonder about the revenue stream the licensing costs provided and how, if at all, Adobe plans on replacing that. I could be wrong but I thought I remembered hearing it was a pretty sizable chunk of change. Between this announcement and the proposed opening of the FLA format recently announced, what props up the Flash Platform for Adobe from a financial perspective? The only things that come to mind are the Flash IDE, Flex Builder and I suppose licensing/infrastructure fees for Flash Cast, as well as LCDS and FMS licenses. I have a hard time believing LCDS and FMS make a ton of money above and beyond what they cost to produce and support, and if you spend any significant time using Flex Builder you know it could be easily displaced as the premiere Flex IDE should another company decide to devote the resources to creating a true competitor. (There are high hopes for the forthcoming Flex support in IntelliJ.) That leaves Flash Cast, which I have no idea about, and the Flash IDE. Who knows, maybe the Flash IDE and/or Creative Suite makes enough to support the Flash side but it seems odd to eliminate a source of revenue generated by the platform itself.
Which Player?
While the persisting engineering challenge is a major hurdle not to be overlooked, my concern regarding it is dwarfed by my concerns about something else. That something else is ‘the F word’. Fragmentation. Myself and countless other developers were drawn to Flash largely because of its true write once run anywhere capabilities. I can honestly say I would have taken a completely different career path if all development suffered from the hell that is HTML/CSS/JS development when it comes to consistency across browsers and platforms. Flash Player undoubtedly owes a significant portion of its ubiquity and success to that consistency.
Until today that consistency was enforced by prohibiting the creation of SWF playback tools by anyone who had gained access to the file spec. Today that restriction was lifted and anyone can view the spec and do with it as they please. That makes me very nervous. Make no mistake about it, even with full access to the spec creating a SWF player would be no small task. Hmmm, are there any organizations out there with technical skills and significant resources and anything to gain by creating their own player? I think I could name a few.
I shudder at the thought of trying to troubleshoot my Flex 5 app for not only Flash Player 11, but also Silverlight 3 (now with SWF playback!), Apple SWF Player 1.0, Sun SWF Player .8 and the NBC Universal Music and SWF Engine. Not to mention playing family tech support to figure out if my dad has the right player for what he is trying to do. Ick.
Bad people
I am not one for conspiracy theories, but allow me to put on my tin foil hat for a moment. What is to stop any ill intentioned group from creating a SWF player with some not so nice ‘capabilities’? It would be possible to create and get users to install a player that looks and acts just like Adobe Flash Player, even has the same context menu and is indistinguishable in virtually every way, except this player comes with a handy dandy keystroke logger. And a nice little phone home feature that sends back your entries and reports every site you visit that contains a SWF. Wouldn’t that be swell?
Or maybe their player eliminates the context menu and crossdomain restrictions altogether and immediately enables every security issue those features are meant to address. The list of potential abuses is almost endless. The only thing really keeping this from happening is some spare time and technical know-how and/or deep pockets. Sadly, if possession of those was rare we would not have the malware and phishing problems we do today.
Take a deep breath
What do you think? Am I crazy? Do any of these things concern you? For everyone’s benefit I hope I am just being paranoid, but I will be very surprised if we don’t see at least some of these problems in the not-so-distant future.
Recent Comments