Further Ruminations on Adobe, Flash and Mobile Devices.

[This entry was originally going to be a comment on Christopher Caleb’s post, ”Adobe’s Mobile Strategy Fundamentally Flawed?”, but I have an annoying habit of writing rather more than I have to, so I granted this corpulent comment a promotion to First Real Post.]

Flash on mobile devices. It’s an interesting prospect. Of course, it’s more than a prospect, it already exists to some extent. Adobe’s dream is to create an engine which allows Flash content to be run on all major platforms, and it has set it’s sights upon mobile devices because they offer the tantalising prospect of being a bit of a cash cow, one way or another.

Christopher’s post is a partial response to Aral Balkan’s post, so you may want to have a quick skim over them. They’re quite interesting. I’ll wait here for you. Go on. Just don’t forget to come back, y’hear?

Read them? Good. Let us begin…

Flash Lite. Failure? Yes. Success? Yes.

Flash Lite failed in it’s grand vision of providing a large, consistent, mobile platform on which to view Flash style content. Currently only a handful of phone models support the latest (backwardly not very compatible) version of Flash Lite, and even amongst those, horrible incompatibility pixies strut around presenting their fail feathers.

It succeeded, however, as a necessary first failure in order to work out what was probably for a successful cross platform, uh, platform. I’m sure within Adobe it spurred many people along paths that needed to trodden in order to move toward a reasonable version of Flash on mobile devices. It also succeeded in inspiring a small but remarkably dedicated segment of developers and designers, giving them a tantalising hint as to what could have been, or should have been possible for mobile app creation.

It’s time to let it rest in peace though. Flash Lite, as it stands, is dead, or perhaps the living dead. Not only is it quite expensive to develop content for, there is very little chance you will recoup all of that investment. Distribution for developed applications remains a nightmare because it is modelled on the old, pre-Apple distribution mechanisms: carrier deals, random user stumbling and dusty website warehouses holding applications of unknown quality.

The next big failure looming for Adobe is their Flash web plugin for mobile devices. Why will it be a failure? Partially because even on my dual core, 64 bit laptop with 4GB of RAM and a ridiculously huge amount of memory bandwidth, the (mis)use of Flash causes a significant proportion of web pages to run far slower than they need to. This isn’t necessarily the fault of the RIA/Flash game you came to look at, but when you add all the Flash adverts and other random elements into the mix, it is an unpleasant experience. Now try to imagine this on a mobile device which can’t throw data around very fast, either in terms of memory bandwidth or network bandwidth. Then mix in a healthy dose of sucky and uncertain device input capabilities, developer assumptions over screen size and resolution and pour in some speed-of-development-over-engineering- worthiness-of-development and inhale the resulting heady scent of user disappointment. It’s going to be a mess.

Traditionally, this is where advocates of mobile and desktop convergence drag out the old dying horse representing the Speed of Technological Advance. Alas, unless desktop technologies stand still (they won’t), this argument is hobbling along on shaky hooves as it is. Coupled with cold hard physical facts to do with heat dispersion versus space, battery life versus cpu power and, finally, the harsh pointy stick of cost of manufacture, we can lead the old horse gently to the great big glue factory in the sky. Small handheld mobile devices will be playing catch up for the currently foreseeable future.

Adobe’s last gasp for mobile success rests on other people doing Adobe’s work for them, and providing nice hooks for a core Flash component on all mobile devices. This is likely to yield one or two high profile success stories, but will be followed by an awful lot of poorer stories.

Part of the reason is what commercial advantage do OEMs have for ensuring excellent compatibility for Adobe’s Open Screen project?

Initially, there will be a significant marketing advantage for the first devices out to support Flash well. It will be a bullet point which will persuade many uncertain buyers to part with their cash. However, this will be a short lived advantage. If it is popular, a version will be quickly offered on other devices (apart from iPhone of course), summarily added to the marketing bullet point list, and then left to rot in good-enough feature hell. And lo, the mistakes of version fragmentation shall be repeated once more.

An alternative would be for Adobe to keep the versions for every platform in house and ensure the quality itself. However, it’s very unlikely they have the resources to undertake such an enormous project, and they certainly won’t have all the access they need to pre-market devices to ensure quality.

A brief diversion here over the responsibilities of OEMs. Many people blame OEMs for device fragmentation hurting 3rd party technologies. They are wrong. The pusher of the proclaimed cross platform product bears the majority of that burden. Said pusher (be it Adobe, be it Sun) is likely to benefit most from wide adoption, so they must accept most of the risk. OEMs have already invested a huge amount in the design, production and likely marketing of the device, so they have already brought enough to the table.

Where was I? Ah yes, version fragmentation. Version fragmentation is bad, however hardware fragmentation is worse. Version fragmentation can be reasonably dealt with, hardware fragmentation is almost impossible to deal with fully. Beyond some sort of certification program run by Adobe to ensure a minimum set of capabilities, there isn’t a great deal Adobe can offer. This will result in the Flash Lite mistake of writing for the largest common feature set, which may not be the most enticing feature set.

The problems faced by Adobe here are not new. They were the same problems brought to light by Java Mobile (or whatever J2ME is called these days). Sun failed to solve them despite coming up with some cunning engineering solutions. Adobe so far seems to be hoping that user pressure from desire for Flash on mobile will solve some of these issues for them, rather than provide any solid technical solutions.

This is was a long, and somewhat Adobe negative entry. However, for the record, I like Flash. My job involves creating wonderful things with Flash. It is with vim and finesse Flash allows me to do this. Flash has changed the face of the Desktop Experience by allowing non computer science people into the geek ridden programming club, and it has changed it for the better, in my opinion.

However, I have to agree with Aral to a large extent. Adobe are drunk on success. This is very dangerous. The clear speed of development advantages offered by Flash are diminishing. JavaScript in browsers now provide enough scripting power to replace Flash in a great many RIA areas, and unlike Adobe’s laughable claim that Flash is a de facto standard, JavaScript actually is a de facto standard. Flash still reigns supreme in the browser game arena, but even here it is under attack from the hugely impressive Unity3D framework. AIR has no clear challenger, but it also has no broad adoption either, despite it’s excellent selling points for desktop application development. In a future where GoogleOS controls your life and your choice of applications, AIR may become irrelevant.

It’s a tough future, but I hope Adobe sip some strong coffee, awaken from their reverie, and stride confidently through it. It’s not too late for them… Yet.

Comments