Flash is Still Closed Source and Proprietary Technology

With all the latest hype about the great Flex framework for Flash applications (including my own hyping), and the fact that Adobe has open sourced Flex, I would like to point out, that Flex is still based on a quite closed an proprietary platform. Something of great importance, I think.

Flex is Great

Flex is “just” a library of classes and components, that one can use to build flash applications with, combined with an SDK and an IDE based on Eclipse. What’s nice about Flex is, that the source is open, and that it has been made available for free. In addition to this, the SDK is command-line based and can easily be integrated into other build systems and tools. This way, you are by no means tied into the Flex IDE. Lastly, the flashplayer are getting official Linux builds from Adobe now, so the apps run on the three main platforms. All nice and dandy.

But, watch out!

So, what are we forgetting? When coming from the (recently) very open Java world, where just about anything is open source and free, we can easily be mislead by all the sudden openness from Adobe. But please remember, that the flashplayer, which is the key enabler for all of Flex, is still closed source and even a very closed community. To illustrate, look at this bug in the Flex bug system database. It has been identified as a flashplayer related problem, and as Adobe then writes: “The flash team has been notified, … closing as external”. And there is no way for all of us, to get access to the related bug report (if any) in the flashplayer. So, is it resolved? Will it be resolved? If so, when? I don’t know. Only someone at Adobe does. And this is no exception, as there are other bugs like this. In addition to this, if you take a look at the flex classes in the api documentation (the mx.* packages), then you will see that they are based on classes from the flash platform (the flash.* packages), and those are closed source.

Another problem, is the fact that all the flex applications in the world are nothing, without the flashplayer being available in its newest version on the needed platform. Yes, users do not have to pay for flashplayer. And yes, the flashplayer is just about anywhere today. That is an important point on why Flex is better than its alternatives. But, it is only recently, that Adobe decided to produce official builds for Linux. And who knows if this continues? Before the official builds, flash on Linux sucked bigtime. In other words: They own us! James Ward had a nice post about how he overcame his fear of flash, and I can agree with some of it. But I think we still shall remember, that flash is closed.

December 28, 2007  Tags: ,   Posted in: Rich Internet Applications

9 Responses

  1. Simon - January 12, 2008

    Boy, this sucks!
    But what about http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ for Linux?

  2. polesen - January 12, 2008

    Hi Simon,

    While I really do like projects like gnash, who are actively trying to provide us all with an open-source alternative, I still think it has a long way to go. At least with respect to flex. Flex2 apps require flash9 to run. Gnash “only” supports flash7, and is working on support for flash8.

    Also, to me, flash and flex wouldn’t be such a great thing to do RIA apps in, if it wasn’t for the fact that their (Adobes) player is everywhere. Having the runtime out there, installed in browsers, accepted by company security rules, etc., is such a great advantage over competing technologies.

    So, with respect to flex, gnash just wont cut it. Yet. With a lot of other flash content, it might.

  3. John Dowdell - January 16, 2008

    Hi — If you’d like to dismiss whole segments of potential experience by calling them “proprietary”, then it’s well within your rights to do so. Perhaps not advisable, but within your rights.

    I’d argue that the Flash Player team is more responsive than the browser vendors… even when considering CSS support alone, it’s hard to reach any other conclusion. The process may be different, but the results definitely seem more open to input.

    Datapoints:

    Applications made via Adobe Flex 2 run in any version of Adobe Flash Player 9, which is already installed by 95% of consumers tested:
    http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html

    The upcoming Flex 3 runs atop Player 9 r30 or better, and persistent framework caching (for very fast startup times) requires the current “Moviestar” r115 or better.

    “Bug resolution” is frequently contested, but the bottomline is that you cannot control what other people install anyway. Adobe Flash Player offers a much more predictable environment when running on other people’s machines. What other people install is up to them, not you. It’s a very different dynamic than Apache, or your own customized browser build. It runs on Other Peoples Machines. Treat it as a given.

    Macromedia Flash Player has been on Linux nearly its entire history:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20000815054538/www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alternates/
    http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2007/01/win_mac_linux.cfm

    jd/adobe

  4. polesen - January 16, 2008

    Hi John,

    Thanks for the comments.

    I sure do not dismiss it, just because it is proprietary. I am currently actively using flex, to build real applications, for real customers, today. And I like it! I even tell other people, that it is great :-)

    But this does not change the fact, that it IS closed and proprietary. If Adobe want it otherwise, open it. If they don’t, by all means, keep it closed. But admit it, and don’t fight, as if it was open, when it is not. It has been closed up until now, and it has great success (flash). But it DOES matter, if it is open or closed.

    I have not said, that the flash player team has not been responsive. Not at all.

    Ahrem! You link to http://web.archive.org/web/20000815054538/www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alternates/, which seems to show, that the player has NOT been officially (by Adobe) on the linux platform. And it has not. It IS now, and that is great. Maybe the player would even work out of the box in Konqueror and Safari, if it was open sourced :-) And come jumping in with “apt-get install”, as a officially supported, free .deb distro package.

    And you are right, that flash offers the most predictable platform (for RIAs), of today. That is why I use it.

    But is IS closed and proprietary. Right?

  5. John Dowdell - January 16, 2008

    Intel processors are “closed and proprietary”, yet many people seem to use them….

    (I look at what you can achieve, the risks you run, the way you can influence the future, rather than just at whether a particular semantic label is slapped atop.)

    jd

  6. 80s team blog » 你是否由于Flash Player的专有性质而远离Flex - January 18, 2008

    [...] Player的专有性质而远离Flex？中文翻译|英文原文 [...]

  7. Tech Per » Blog Archive » Adobe Not Playing Nice On Flex Bugs - February 5, 2008

    [...] while ago, I posted on flash still being closed and proprietary, to make us think about that, before blindly adopting flex as a cool way to do RIAs. That post also [...]

  8. Ted’s Rants and Raves :: Why I’m Not Using Adobe Flex (yet?) :: March :: 2008 - Software Development, Software Engineering, Agile Development, User Interface, and Applications Commentary - March 1, 2008

    [...] was just reading Per Olesen’s blog entry about Adobe Flex and the fact that it’s closed source and proprietary, and it hit me that the reason I [...]

  9. Tech Per » Blog Archive » Public Flashplayer Bug Database - April 10, 2008

    [...] have previously complained about flashplayer being closed, and bugs reported in flex public jira “disappeared” into a closed bug database in [...]

Leave a Reply