Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and many other leading Internet enablers are now all involved in an active debate on how to move forward with content authoring in the multi-platform world.  The launch of the tablet device has prompted an escalating discussion on the merits of technologies like Adobe Flash versus Object C and HTML5. It has taken ridiculous proportions.  While it didn’t bother anyone initially that smart phones often don’t support Flash, with the launch of the Apple iPad, many were starting to question why.  I wrote a blog post on the lack of Flash on the iPhone about a year ago but Steve Job’s comments recently have really exposed the issue in a different light.

HTML5 is a specification for video (H.264), vector animation (canvas), interactive logic (JavaScript) and layout (CSS/HTML).  Adobe Flash also covers video (FLV), vector animation (FLA), interactive logic (ActionScript) and layout.  Aside from the video part which can automatically be converted (be it with some loss of functionality), the other parts of these technologies are absolutely not automatically convertible and aren't even comparable due to vast differences in sophistication.  Flash is far better with animation, while HTML5 is far more efficient in simple content layout.  It has been surprising how many opinions are published where that critical fact is omitted. (Including Steve Jobs open letter)

I’ve had it up to here with listening to everyone complaining about how the iPhone doesn’t support Adobe’s Flash.  People are either hyping the future of Flash or proposing outlandish solutions that don’t really work.  The fact is, there are substantial reasons why Adobe Flash doesn't get embedded into many phones. Instead of demanding that Adobe puts Flash on iPhones, people should wonder why it has been so difficult. I followed the saga of Flash on mobile since 2003, often experimented with it, and would like to share some findings. The Problems with Flash on Mobile

• It is high in CPU use, which is a problem on many levels for a mobile phone.  It is likely to deliver a sub-standard experience on a phone since vector graphics are complex calculations
• With Flash (a veritable resource hog) on board, the phone or app will crash more frequently
• Flash on mobile in the US has a tarnished reputation.  Not that this can’t be overcome but Verizon’s deal with Adobe FlashCast was a famous failure.  Crisp has first hand experience working on a FlashCast app with Verizon in 2007 and it was a nightmare.
• Flash Lite (v1 to v3) had many developers with high expectations fooled.  In truth, Flash Lite technology for phones is rather simple and useless.
• Embedding Flash as a plug-in in a browser creates all sorts of complications. QuickTime isn’t even running within a web page on iPhone Safari. QuickTime launches as a separate app.

The Future for Flash on Mobile

• Adobe is hard at work creating enough improvements to the technology to make it work better for phones. Only then will manufacturers and operators find it worthwhile to license it.  It would be logical to expect to see some results early 2010 as announced this year at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
• I’m convinced that it is not due to lack of will that Adobe requires time to do this.  Optimization of this complex graphical application often depends on use of low-level system API’s which might not be accessible.  These interdependencies take time to resolve.
• While Adobe will provide several popular mobile software platforms with embedded Flash capabilities in the future, expect that iPhone and Blackberry will be the last ones.  Apple has QuickTime and they are expected to drag their feet on working with Adobe to support Flash. Blackberry being a Java device for the enterprise would probably have problems providing the low-level OS access.  The first movers will be Android, Palm Pre, Windows Phone or Symbian.
• But Flash for the web and Flash on mobile will still be two different things entirely. Don't expect a regular Flash animation for web to be fully compatible with mobile Flash.  Which means, don’t expect your Flash-based ads or web pages to render on mobile devices seamlessly.  You will still need to optimize for mobile.

What to Do About it Today There are companies out there today who have announced ways to “fake Flash” or provide technology work-arounds for a Flash-like experience.  It surprises me that there are so few mobile sites taking advantage of the viable alternative that is SVG, a scalable vector based graphics library that is embedded in a remarkable number of browsers.  SVG is expected to be more broadly available in mobile browsers soon. Just like HTML 5 and SMIL, it is part of the list of technologies that within few years will be all the rage here at Crisp since it will be more broadly supported by phones and support the needs of mobile advertisers. I have well founded hopes for flashy and cool animations on the mobile web and SVG is the first to provide a technically workable solution, but let's put our web embedded Flash hopes to bed for a little while.  Until Adobe puts better solutions on the market, ad networks and agencies may look to repurpose regular Flash ads in mobile as an interim solution.  Serving Flash-like ads within an iPhone application has potential but then you are limiting your audience. In the interim, here at Crisp we have found a few work arounds of our own.  First, while agencies and brands may say they want Flash, what they really want is an engaging consumer experience.  We can accomplish this with a variety of rich media ad units including IAB standard 300x250 ad units used as full screen takeovers or interstitials, Javascript-enabled rotating banners, banner expansion units with tap-to-video within the ad itself.  As mobile experts, we continue to innovate rich media mobile ad solutions that capture the audience’s attention and provide multiple avenues of response to drive interaction and brand engagement and recall.