Live data from Hacker News

Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#41
post #30

I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned what I would expect would be one of the biggest reasons: bandwidth. Considering the number of people hitting the various Google services at any given moment, adding Flash, and/or pretty images or extra CSS or fancy-pants JavaScript could induce a pretty big additional cost, and for no justifiable reason.

Why would compressed bytecode (Flash) be larger than source code (JavaScript)? AMF is also generally smaller than JSON or XML.

Class libraries. Usually, to do anything impressive with Flash either requires lots of multimedia assets or lots of class libraries. JavaScript has the ability to piggyback off the browser's HTML/CSS rendering engines.

A lot also has to do with their respective cultures - as a JavaScript dev, you learn to do more with less because doing more with more is so exquisitely painful. That's why Flash UIs are often visually more attractive - it's easier for them to be visually attractive.

And JavaScript compresses really well - it's not unusual for GZipped + minified JavaScript to be less than 20% the size of the uncompressed source code.

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#42
post #32
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why not use Flash for the entire site rather than just the video player?

Because when you display all that extra site stuff with flash you take away tons of simple but important functionality. copy/paste save as... view image copy image location Bookmark this Open in new tab etc. you get the idea.

1) Copy-past works just fine, at least with flex 3 text or textarea controls 2) Saving the swf is easy, and you can view it any time 3) Images are usually embedded, and you can get them with a resource viewer 4) Copy image location - this is not necessary, as images are usually embedded 5) flash supports url fragments for navigate (path after #), so as long as the flash site uses fragments, it is bookmarkable 6) open in new tab works

I'm curious where you got this misinformation, anyway.

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#43
post #39

Why would an indexing company promote non indexable content?

That's a big part of the answer. Flash is not indexable, and is one of the biggest problems that Flash has.

Flash has its uses, and Google does use Flash where it makes sense, e.g. the charts on Google Analytics.

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#44
Iam not a flash fan. But off late it has amazed me with the functionality and features that can built so fast. If u have flash IDE, man building web sites are lot faster and easier. Iam sure it has is own drawbacks. I don’t agree with folks that say flash is not available in all browsers. Flash penetration is around 80-90 % of global market. Wake up guys.

Cheers, omfut

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#45
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when you display all that extra site stuff with flash you take away tons of simple but important functionality. copy/paste save as... view image copy image location Bookmark this Open in new tab etc. you get the idea.

1) Copy-past works just fine, at least with flex 3 text or textarea controls 2) Saving the swf is easy, and you can view it any time 3) Images are usually embedded, and you can get them with a resource viewer 4) Copy image location - this is not necessary, as images are usually embedded 5) flash supports url fragments for navigate (path after #), so as long as the flash site uses fragments, it is bookmarkable 6) open…

Open in new tab only works to open the flash page in a new tab, subsequent browsing within the flash page does not allow one to open in a new tab.

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#46
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when you display all that extra site stuff with flash you take away tons of simple but important functionality. copy/paste save as... view image copy image location Bookmark this Open in new tab etc. you get the idea.

1) Copy-past works just fine, at least with flex 3 text or textarea controls 2) Saving the swf is easy, and you can view it any time 3) Images are usually embedded, and you can get them with a resource viewer 4) Copy image location - this is not necessary, as images are usually embedded 5) flash supports url fragments for navigate (path after #), so as long as the flash site uses fragments, it is bookmarkable 6) open…

The difference is that for flash websites, the developer has to actively be 'nice' to allow these things (default=not accessible), whereas with html+css+javascript, the developer has to actively be obnoxious to NOT allow these things (default=accessible).

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#47
post #44

Iam not a flash fan. But off late it has amazed me with the functionality and features that can built so fast. If u have flash IDE, man building web sites are lot faster and easier. Iam sure it has is own drawbacks. I don’t agree with folks that say flash is not available in all browsers. Flash penetration is around 80-90 % of global market. Wake up guys. Cheers, omfut

links, screen readers, mobile, and sometimes see gap between flash 7 and 9 on linux not the current version.

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#48
post #11

>I wouldn't be surprised if Google is working on its own competitor to Flash/Silverlight. http://gears.google.com/

That's not a competitor to Flash/Silverlight.

It's the only thing they have in the online/offline integration space. If not a direct competitor, it still has relevance. Google doesn't use Flex or Silverlight because they can reproduce complex interfaces in just javascript and it's usable offline with Google Gears.

If Google wanted to compete with Flex/Silverlight, they could release a GUI widget toolkit for javascript and combined with Google Gears they would have a contender.

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#49
Doesn't anyone remember, back in the day, when HTML was "just fine" and javascript was 'clunky', 'unusable', and had a multitude of accessability issues. Cross-browser javascript problems, anyone? Now, of course flash also has its issues, but believe it or not, they are, much, much fewer and smaller than javascript/ajax had when it first started out, and even, dare i say, now.

The accessability issues, associated with flash are usually (as always) because the developer didn't know how to fix them, or didn't care to. There simply hasn't been a "killer app" like gmail, to show all the world that it could do thing much better than is generally asumed.

For example did you know that you can make a flash site change it's url as you navigate through it, enabling you to link/bookmark a specific section or a page of it (also allowing you yo use back/forward buttons)? The accessability issues have also long been solved, giving 'no-flash' users a striped down, yet fully functional/accesible site (as is the idea of javascript behaviours, if I recall correctly). (Take a look at this site http://www.rizn.bg for example of the two above - I know it's not english but the important thing is the concept)

And flash in itself has much more potential than javascript/ajax. 3D animations, build-in optimised compression algorithms, easier server integration, video/audio streaming, webcamera support, better file upload, etc, and it's all build in, on a single platform, with a quite nice and consistent api on top of it. Actionscript (the flash language) is a quite nice blend of java and javascript, minus the java bloat, complete with classes, inheritence, true C-like data types (insane performance), clusures. And it's all a lot more cross-browser friendly, than any other competing tehnology.

Now, i'm not suggesting we all jump in, because it does have issues still (font rendering, os integration and of caurse performance, to name a few) but there are quite a few places where it is a very good alternative. Just because most of the flash we come in contact with are useless splash screens and tacky animations, it doesn't mean that it can't do better. It's a hugely undervalued platform in my opinion, and we kinda have to 'wake up' and talk about its benefits instead of "it'll never work, its better to stick to what you know".

As for the original question - maybe because when it started out, flalsh was not good enough (pre flash 9 time), and by now they already have an infrastructure in place. Maybe if they create something radically new, they'll try to adopt flash, otherwise they'll stick with what works for them now.

Re: Ask YC: Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

#50
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when you display all that extra site stuff with flash you take away tons of simple but important functionality. copy/paste save as... view image copy image location Bookmark this Open in new tab etc. you get the idea.

1) Copy-past works just fine, at least with flex 3 text or textarea controls 2) Saving the swf is easy, and you can view it any time 3) Images are usually embedded, and you can get them with a resource viewer 4) Copy image location - this is not necessary, as images are usually embedded 5) flash supports url fragments for navigate (path after #), so as long as the flash site uses fragments, it is bookmarkable 6) open…

A basic understanding of flash, computers, combined with browsing the web and making observations and deductions.

    1) With HTML you don't have to use textarea controls.

    2) Saving an SWF is not trivial.

    3) How much of your target audience really bothers to find a resource viewer?

    4) It's necessary because your users don't have a resource viewer.

    5) So the flash developer has to know what 'url fragments' are in order to make portions of the app bookmarkable.

    6) I can't think of a flash app where open in new tab works.  Obviously it is not trivial to implement
Post reply on HN