ThirtyThreeAs wrote:
Flash is not a standard. Flash is a proprietary platform owned by Adobe. If you even want to work with Flash you have to buy the compiler from Adobe. If they want it to be a "standard" as you claim, they shouldn't lock it in. Sell the suite and support, give away or open up the compiler.
I'm going to just point out that the argument you're using here is this: It's not a standard because it's not free.
Yeah. It should be fairly obvious why I don't need to say anything else here.
Quote:
Oh yeah this statement really got me: "If Flash dies, how many replacements will you have to install just to get your favorite sites to work?" None! That's the point. We shouldn't have to install a plugin to make websites work. Especially when all the tools to duplicate the functionality that Flash provides are already provided. The only exception is embedded video, although once WHATWG finalizes HTML5 there will be a way to duplicate that functionality as well.
Do you really think that just because you don't like it, people will stop doing it? There's a market for that sort of thing, and
that's why Flash exists. If it died, there would be people who would decide to replace it. And not just one company would come out on top.
I'm not a big fan of websites that use Flash, but it happens. If Flash was gone, they'd find and use something else. Let's say I visit 10 sites that used to use Flash. It's gone and now they use 4 different programs that require 4 different plugins. And yes, it would happen. SHOULD or SHOULDN'T doesn't matter.
When it comes to website design, there will always be people who insist on doing certain things. How many people still use tables for formatting? Are you saying that none of the sites you go to do that? They shouldn't, and yet they do. That doesn't mean you stop going to a site that proves useful to you in some way.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
