I was reading some articles about steve jobs trying to convince major newspapers (like Wall Street Journal) to use non-flash (mainly JS) technology instead of the – as he called it old (we (Apple) don’t “spend a lot of energy on old technology”)
now, of course he has to push his new market defining products (iphone and now Ipad) and since they are not supporting flash (CPU problems, battery issues) he has to point alternatives.
We used to work with flash a lot about 5 years ago. we have build then our own flash video player (still in use, and covering all major functions that modern opensource now come with .-) ), but as JS technologies evolved we kind of let it behind. Of course, when creating microsites, UX heavy small sites there is nothing to compare with flash. It hat just too many features that allow users to interact and “fell good”.
Nevertheless, we (and I think most of the websites today) are moving toward more complex sites, heavy traffic, complex user interactions. And when deciding to use flash technologies we have to ask ourselves if the “another layer of complexity” is really worth the effort.
We speak here about more development time than using AJAX for example. We speak in longer “time to market” cycles (who can afford it these days?) we speak about controlling (in terms of debugging, roll out) more than one technology.
Even if I don’t think flash is dying anytime soon, nor it will loose its power, it will be more and more replaced by technologies that can cover at least some of the products core features.
We should keep an eye on HTML5, H.264 video compression system, AJAX. So what will still remain? Why still stay on flash and not moving forward as technology evolves?
Looking forward to the future