Whether they like it or not, this will cause issues for legacy use cases and people will likely just resort to using out of date versions of the extension.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
The only reason no one uses it anymore is because of the lack of quality maintenance.
No, the reason no one uses is anymore is because there are much better alternatives that are baked right into web standards. Back when it was popular if you wanted to stream video or add interactive animations to your site, Flash was the only way to build that functionality. As the web consortium realized that these were high demand features, they implemented them directly in web standards themselves so you no longer needed a heavy middleware library. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before flash faded into obscurity.
Its two competitors, Java applets and Microsoft's Silverlight framework, have similarly faded away.
Those alternatives came into being to compete with flash and rose to prominence because of the shoddy handling Adobe had with flash.
No, those alternatives came because Flash was being used for things it was never designed to do. Remember Flash Player was originally designed as a web frontend for animations made using Adobe's "Flash" animator product. It's ease of use made it popular for web devs to use for animated web pages, which garnered an install base. People then leveraged that install base when designing complex apps like streaming applets and games, even though that was beyond the scope of the Flash player project.
Adobe themselves made a better framework called Air but nobody used it because it was already established that W3 was getting involved. There was no saving Flash because, like all middleware of its type, it goes against the idea of the internet as a concept. If the internet is to be truly open and free, relying on proprietary software from shitty licence trolls like Adobe is absolutely not the way to do it.