

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

Almost everyone has Flash installed after all.<p>I wouldn't be surprised if Google is working on its own competitor to Flash/Silverlight.
======
presty
Why doesn't Google use better technology to build its services (e.g., Flash)?

What better technology? Guess who popularized AJAX?

Flash sucks. There's no real support for linux from adobe, it makes the
browser heavier, it's a closed proprietary technology and it's awful for
things that are not animation related.

~~~
jcbozonier
Actually Flash is open source now. You can even make your own player:
<http://www.adobe.com/openscreenproject/>

~~~
wmf
But making your own player doesn't give you any say over the future of Flash,
so if you do that you're getting on a treadmill controlled by Adobe.

------
humanlever
Google revolves around information accessibility, using Flash for anything
besides the presentation of graphics is a big step back in that area.

Youtube may make good use of Flash, but even they limit it to areas of
absolute necessity.

~~~
amichail
Why can't Flash be improved to make information accessible?

~~~
bootload
_".... Why can't Flash be improved to make information accessible? ..."_

Probably for the same reason the tech that google does use can. Openness.

------
kennyroo
For my own selfish reasons, I'm pleased that Google doesn't use Flash for
applications. Using XHTML/CSS/JS/etc. is great because other developers can
inspect it, understand it, and go from there.

For practical purposes, I suspect Flash may be a pain in the ass to use on
their scale. Debug, version control, localization, analytics, and more
probably wouldn't play well with the rest of their platform and processes.

Also, Flash isn't supported on many wireless devices including the high-
profile iPhone.

Future releases of HTML and JavsScript will handle some of what Flash does
today. Perhaps it's just not necessary.

------
ikerin
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.

------
idea
> I wouldn't be surprised if Google is working on its own competitor to
> Flash/Silverlight.

Microsoft has big problems getting Silverlight off the ground, although it is
imo technically superior to Flash. I don't think it would be easier for Google
to launch a competing platform. I personally think that they will bet on HTML5
through their partnership with Mozilla.

------
bartman
Google uses Flash for their charts in analytics and finance.

------
globalrev
because flash sucks?

~~~
amichail
Could you elaborate?

Maybe it's not convenient for developers, but the result is better for users
than an ad hoc mix of old web technologies that is seriously lacking in
features and plagued with compatibility problems.

~~~
baha_man
From the Google Webmaster Central Blog: "Try to use Flash only where it is
needed... this makes you[r] site accessible to a larger audience, including,
for example, blind people using screen readers, users of old or non-standard
browsers, and those on limited low-bandwidth connections such as on a cell
phone or PDA."

[http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/07/best-
uses...](http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/07/best-uses-of-
flash.html)

I can think of a few good examples of web sites which use Flash effectively,
e.g. the BBC 'Get Cooking' site:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/get_cooking/>

However, Flash normally seems to be used for displaying pointless, obnoxious
splash screens which add no value for the user.

~~~
aneesh
> _I can think of a few good examples of web sites which use Flash
> effectively_

Youtube!

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

~~~
Goladus
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.

~~~
marketer
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.

~~~
apu
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).

------
axod
* It's slow * It's proprietory * It's not supported on several platforms (iPhone, wii, etc etc)

Javascript works just fine thanks. With HTML5 and the video capabilities
flash/silverlight will become even less relevant IMHO

------
icey
Why would an indexing company promote non indexable content?

~~~
bbgm
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.

------
thaumaturgy
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.

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

~~~
thaumaturgy
| Why would compressed bytecode (Flash) be larger than source code
(JavaScript)?

I read the original question as asking why Google didn't add Flash onto its
interface. I suppose it might be possible to replace their current JavaScript
functions with Flash bytecode, but given the lengths they go to already to
compress their JavaScript, I'd be surprised if the benefits there would be
worth the trouble, not to mention any possible costs they might end up with
due to migrating to Flash. (Browser support, version changes...?)

| AMF is also generally smaller than JSON or XML.

I kinda recalled Gmail (for instance) not using XML, but I dumped a session
through Firebug to make sure. They're using their own (very simple) data
format, and I doubt that AMF, or SOAP, or anything else could beat it, short
of using actual data compression on both server and client side (and, again,
probably not worth it).

Crawling through the Gmail code and data only reinforces my guess that their
services are designed with low bandwidth usage among their top priorities.

------
rms
>I wouldn't be surprised if Google is working on its own competitor to
Flash/Silverlight.

<http://gears.google.com/>

~~~
amichail
That's not a competitor to Flash/Silverlight.

~~~
rms
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.

------
aswanson
To what end?

------
xtat
flash is shit. next?

------
omfut
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

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

