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

[amichail]

Almost everyone has Flash installed after all.

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/

[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?

[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.

[flashgordon]

actually flash may "suck", but the flex (and air) sdk is not half bad... even I could learn it in about half a day and managed to put together some pretty sophisticated tools at work (game development stuff)..

the real reason i would say google would not want to use flash is due to its not-so-openness and thereby prepping itself for more uncertainity in the future.

[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.

[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.

[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.