Flash vs. iPhone
For a fairly even-handed view of why Flash isn't, and may never be, on the iPhone, take a look at the June 17 entry on Counternotions.com. I say even handed, because it actually talks about why Flash isn't on the phone as opposed to the usual screeching of It's not a web standard! Flash should burn!
Basically, Flash would probably use too much CPU and Memory, or at least negatively impact battery life - and has no workable input model! I don't think the first three reasons (the most commonly sited ones) actually matter - either the CPU is free or it isn't, either there's memory or there isn't. With a lack of background processing, it doesn't matter if the CPU or Memory get pegged at 100%. And the battery life on the phone is already not that great if you're surfing the web, or using an app - the battery doesn't magically die just because it senses Flash running - Super Monkey Ball will kill the battery just as quickly as Flash.
Of course, Flash is more ubiquitous so odds are that you will burn more battery on Flash - so I look to the FlashBlock extension and Apple's own handling of Quicktime content for a solution. Flashblock essentially places a "play" button over Flash content in Firefox, so you only see what you want. And on the iPhone, viewing Quicktime content takes you out of the browser into the Quicktime application.
Of course, the input model is a huge problem. Right now, Flash (and Flash designers) take full advantage of mouse inputs like rollovers, rollouts, dragging, press, release, etc... which don't really map to the iPhone. There's no mouse point, and no idle state - either you're pressing on the screen, or you aren't. Basically, positioning the 'mouse' on the iPhone can't happen with it's current input model.
There's an interesting dig at designers in here, which is the main reason the article interests me: Adobe has created its own UI for it's apps - which is great. As someone who actually works for a living (instead of complaining on the internet) it's invaluable for me to be able to sit down at a copy of Photoshop or Flash and feel at home. But this gets carried over to designers who design non-standard designs for the web in Flash. Clearly, Kontra, writer of CounterNotions, got a little lost here. Essentially, the worst of the internet (skip intro buttons, inscrutable interfaces) exist only because of Flash, and without Flash, we'd all be in usability heaven.
No. Sorry. Users may not be smart, but they're not stupid. The current market for 90% of the internet has been using computers for a decade now, at least. They're also video gamers. They're decently intelligent, and can figure out interfaces.
In a Wisdom of Crowds bit of smart-assery, the comments have some winners. The usual anti-Flash trolls come out pointing out Flash practices that haven't been done by good designers for years. Bad designers will always make things that suck. Also, I hate to point it out to people, but AJAX wasn't a standard - it was a hack introduced by Microsoft in IE to allow for refresh-less updates. Other browsers thought it was a good idea, so they implemented it too. It became a defacto standard - just like Flash - for dynamic content. Of course, it still doesn't allow for dynamic drawing/animation like Flash does. And most examples of AJAX-y bevhavior are just tarted up DHTML, built to mimick the most basic Flash functionality. AJAX has the same issues as Flash with performance and CPU usage - bad AJAX is just as heavy to load as bad Flash, and just as slow.
Safari vs. Firefox
Everyone loves Firefox. Except me. I hate it. I hate that it took them 3 versions to make something that didn't look like a Windows application running on my Mac, and that I had to download skins to make it non-blindingly ugly. I hate the smugness that you're part of an open source movement (what, WebKit isn't?) I hate the technical claims of superiority (it runs nearly identical to Safari for me... 3 versions in. Version 1 gave me major crashing issues on 3 different computers, Version 2 would either crash randomly, or refuse to close open windows, or would gobble every available CPU cycle and byte of memory. Version 3 FINALLY runs as fast and as smoothly for me as Safari. It doesn't eat all of my CPU or RAM. It doesn't crash. It doesn't randomly break basic functionality.
Looks like at least one other person agrees with me: The Big Contrarian thinks the Firefox/Safari comparison page is silly too. The 2 main advantages (customization and anti-phishing technology) are mostly useless to me, as I run with one toolbar addon and I'm not a goddamn idiot when it comes to giving out my personal information. (Am I an idiot in other ways? Yes. But not that way.)
The Wisdom of Crowds
I read Coding Horror from time to time. I don't particularly care for his stance on Freedom 0 (the freedom to install whatever you want on your computer - it's just stupid. Macs allow you to install anything Mac compatible. Just like PCs, and Linux, and Unix.) but it's occasionally information, and sometimes funny.
Sometimes, it's unintentionally funny, like when he claimed bloggers who don't allow comments "don't understand why blogs work."
Actually, I do understand why blogs work - reasonably intelligent people read something that piques their interest, or come up with an original though. They write about it. I read it. I feel enlightened (or, I decide I think the author is an idiot and ignore them). I DON'T believe in the wisdom of crowds, as it exists in blog comments. Most can be summed up in 4 ways:
- I agree, syncophantically. You are my God.
- I disagree, but with logic that a 10 year old could disect. I just like seeing my name on the internet.
- Barely relevant flame attempt.
- Spam!
Oh, sure. There's occasionally really good comments. You know where else I get really good comments? My email! That's right. I've found that when I write blog comments, they're quick thoughts. Generally, 30 seconds after posting I wonder, "Does anyone really care?" But when I have to write an email to a blog author, I end up spending anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour. Half the time, I read my finished response and decide that I -am- the idiot, and that my feedback is meaningless.
I do like his point about Amazon user reviews. Of course, like blog comments, 90% of them are meaningless drivel written by people whose command of a keyboard is seriously lacking, and may never have even purchased/used said product. I also don't really care if Sue from Kansas thought that the book I'm looking at was a waste of paper. Do I know Sue? Maybe Sue really likes Precious Moments figurines and Anne Gettis calendars - and that I should really just ignore her opinion.
The Wisdom of Crowds is bullshit. The only time Wisdom of Crowds works is when it's the Wisdom of a Crowd of Experts (or at least, Informed Amateurs). Crowds are stupid, as we learn repeatedly throughout history. They exist to froth and feed - not to contribute. It's part of a weird anti-elitism that is pervalent in American culture. Why should we trust the experts? This feels right. Wikipedia doesn't work because anyone can edit it - it works in spite of it. It works on the assumption that there's enough smart people out there to counteract acts of vandalism or ignorance - and allow the good content to come through. Of course, this doesn't always work, as we've seen Wikipedia edit wars break out over issues that had nothing to do with the actual content, and blatantly false content sneaks through on a regular basis (google "Elvis Costello" and "Wikipedia" edits to see how their editing system fails).
