The tweet mentions that you could 'just' send an SWF file to someone and it played. Well, if anybody had to fix a computer, or hosted anything Flash-based during that era, then they would know that's bullshit. Sure maybe with the standalone Flash player it worked allright, but that's not how people really used Flash. Even in my experience, a single SWF running locally didn't always work across all versions of Flash p…
In the early days, people would share Flash projects as .EXE files, and those would "just work".
HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
171–180 of 372 posts
Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#172I've come across a lot of similar sentiment from ex-Flash devs, who romanticise its heyday as a period of fertile creativity (true) and say that HTML5/JS/CSS/SVG is an inadequate replacement (false). In truth, the fundamental capabilities of the modern web platform matches and typically exceeds anything that was offered by Flash. What these people are really lamenting is the ease of authorship that Flash provided to…
Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually Flash was fantastic (for games). AS3 is one of my favorite programming languages I've ever worked with, but Flash wasn't just a programming language. The display tree (put simply: game engine) was baked into the runtime, which made it very very easy to make games. The tight coupling between art (movieclips created in Flash the program) and code (AS3 written in FlashDevelop or notepad) made for very fast iter…
One could argue we have more games today and they are more richly animated and more complex than it ever was and they have better reach to more number of users (with iOS / Android) than ever before. So from a user's standpoint, things have become better not worse – they don't have to compromise security or accept horrible battery life in doing so. From the developer's standpoint, things have improved too – they don't…
Battery life wasn't really a thing I worried about before smartphones came along, so I'm not sure that's super relevant (although, if you want to pick that fight, Unity on mobile is a real battery killer). Security was rough, but I think I'd trade a bit of security to ditch the walled gardens we have today.
I do think things are better in most ways for users. Because Flash portals didn't require a download, it was MUCH easier to try new things. This led to a virtuous cycle of people making weird shit. Because so much game content is gated behind app stores these days, you have to download a thing and then wade through permission/notification screens and it's too much of a cognitive burden compared to "oh, that looks neat." (Toss on that app stores are horrible for discovery). I think the way most people discover (mobile) games these days is through ads, and if a game is running ads they're a large company with plans to extract $5-$10+ out of you...
So we've traded big catalogues of free games with crappy banner ads for walled gardens that depend on ads for discovery of exploitative IAP skinner boxes.
Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#174The tweet mentions that you could 'just' send an SWF file to someone and it played. Well, if anybody had to fix a computer, or hosted anything Flash-based during that era, then they would know that's bullshit. Sure maybe with the standalone Flash player it worked allright, but that's not how people really used Flash. Even in my experience, a single SWF running locally didn't always work across all versions of Flash p…
All I needed to do was export the flash document as an exe and boom: it worked. The portability was amazing. I would just cut a release, put it on floppies, and take them to school. I never had anyone complain once about having an issue. Oh, and no one gave a damn about Linux outside of server admins back then, so yes an .exe was "universally" portable across whatever windows version people had running. There was also a fairly easy process for creating versions for Macs then too, but I don't remember how I did it.
Also, Flash was very good about having backwards compatible exports, so for as long as you weren't using the latest features you could reliably export to older versions of Flash.
Flash was a blessing in the late 90s and early aughts too precisely because it was the only reliable runtime when the internet was a flaming trash heap of incompatibility during the browser wars. Nothing worked everywhere /except/ Flash. The only other app platform available at the time were Java applets, and those were a nightmare. There's a reason why you used to be able to buy entire websites that were Flash based: it just worked.
Yes, Flash only worked if you had Flash installed, but honestly, who didn't? Was this really any different than making sure you had whatever God forsaken Windows service pack installed on your computer? And yes, I know Flash didn't work on Linux, but almost /everyone/ ran Windows back in the day.
I loved every product Macromedia created and owe a lot to them for having made it so easy to make engaging dynamic content. It's how I got hooked on developing software as a kid in elementary school.
It's a shame that there's nothing as simple anymore. I died a little inside when Adobe bought them, and I feel like the next generation is missing out on what was a really fun, flexible, and simple tool...
Making a ball change shades and move in Flash was a few intuitive clicks on a timeline. Now we have a only have a canvas API with relatively low level primitives. If you want things to be simpler, you have to go find some other package, oh wait now you need node, npm, we pack and 20 other dependencies to build the damn package, did you download the proper CSS file too, oh wait you need to import the script at the bottom of the page not the head, blah, blah, blah.
I miss Flash. Yes, the internet is better without it, but I feel like kids of today don't know what they're missing.
Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#175Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#176The proof is in the pudding. Nobody makes webgl+javascript 2d animations hostable anywhere. There's little to no websites that will host arbitrary content like they could with swfs. Luckily browsers don't matter, and newgrounds has their own flash player you can launch content with.
We all invested in responsive layouts and dropped the rich, absolute and hand made layouts of yesteryear.
Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adobe Animate costs 20$/month. I don't recall exactly how much Flash cost, but it sure wasn't that much. The barrier to entry is higher, thus popularity wanes.
If I recall correctly, it has always cost roughly as much as Photoshop during Adobe ownership. That is to say: prior to the Adobe CC pricing model, Flash cost many hundreds of dollars. I did a quick spot check on Archive.org and it looks like "Flash Professional 8" had a retail price of $700 in 2006. $20/mo is definitely a lower barrier to entry than a one-off $700 payment.
Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird contrarian "actually Flash was good" takes I've been seeing all over today is absolutely bonkers. It's like these people think we weren't around when Flash was a thing or they just have rose colored nostalgia glasses on. Flash was absolutely horrendous. Also, people keep talking about how easy it was to create stuff in it and how JS/HTML involves too much coding. This is more revisionist history - Flash had…
Actually Flash was fantastic (for games). AS3 is one of my favorite programming languages I've ever worked with, but Flash wasn't just a programming language. The display tree (put simply: game engine) was baked into the runtime, which made it very very easy to make games. The tight coupling between art (movieclips created in Flash the program) and code (AS3 written in FlashDevelop or notepad) made for very fast iter…
Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. As someone who learned games programming in Flash, and loved Flash, and benefited quite a bit from it -- no, you couldn't just email someone an SWF. That never worked. Nobody had a standalone Flash player installed that wasn't in a browser, and when I moved to newer versions of Flash, I would regularly run into problems where someone would have a Flash player that didn't support the stuff I was trying to do.…
> Cross platform my butt, Flash was only ever "cross platform" on Windows, and occasionally on Mac. Flash only ever worked properly if you were running it in Internet Explorer for Mac OS 9. Any other browser/OS combination and you were looking at low framerates, audio/video desync, or both. Linux was worst of all.
Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash
#180Then selectively enable it for YouTube, etc.