« Flash Professional 9 ActionScript 3.0 Preview | Main | IFBIN for Free... »
July 09, 2006
Scoble vs. Flash - Scoble wins, Flash does not lose...
First of all, I'm sure regular readers of my blog will want to know what a 'Scoble' is. He is an overrated ex-Microsoft blogger, now in podcasting business. I visited his blog a couple of times in the past because sometimes JD referred to his posts, but never found something really worth reading there. I really never understood why he became a famous blogger, I guess it was because he used to work at Microsoft.
Anyway, this guy blogged about why he doesn't use Flash... Mike Chambers and Aral Balkan posted their reactions to this post. They are both great guys (and I never use the term lightly) but I think they missed the real point (though they both show how weak Scoble's argument against Flash is).
Before going any further, let me explain the reason. I may not find Scoble's writings worth reading, but I would never think he's stupid for a moment. I think his target was not Flash at all. I think his motive was (a) getting attention and (b) making his competitor look bad. And he surely succeeded in this. Mike Chambers agrees that the implementation of the competitors site is bad. Aral Balkan says a bad implementation does not make a technology bad. There goes PodShow's site down the drain...
Actually, I don't agree with this. OK, I admit 'Be patient' title is no good and I haven't visited the site yet. And yes, using Flash detection would have been nice, but I don't think it's essential unless you have alternate content. I think now Flash is at a point that without it a browser is not complete, like a browser that cannot display GIF or JPG images.
Scoble posted a picture and claims that a 'normal' person will hit the 'little green' back button. I can't disagree more. The picture has Firefox nicely displaying that the user needs to download a plug-in and a big hit area and a default button for downloading it. A geek may choose not to download the plug-in (as I do for Quicktime) but a 'normal' person will surely download it. And it's not like it's the only site he'll see this. Show the picture to your mom and ask what she'll do? I think Scoble is seriously wrong about this. (Some people above 'normal', below 'geek' may not download suspecting malware, but then again it depends on the trust for the site and the browser).
On the other hand, Mike Chambers also posted a picture in his response, but in that picture there's no choice but hitting the back button, as Safari can't open an mms: address. So his argument about not using Windows Media makes sense...
One wonders why Scoble uses Firefox on his brand new Vista. He left MS with good terms and there's a good chance he'll get back there. Why would he do that? I'm not sure, but I suspect if he used IE he wouldn't be able to get a screenshot he could claim a 'normal' person will hit the back button...
I'm sure Scoble has seen a few good Flash sites, some by MS, and I'm quite sure he's not so stupid that he'll judge a technology with one bad implementation (assuming the implementation is bad). So, if his post was really about Flash, this leaves only one conclusion: Scoble thinks he'll not be able to implement a nice, proper Flash site, so he's not using Flash at all. (which is fine with me, BTW). But as I said, I don't think this was his intention. (Or is he looking for a job at Adobe? History shows this approach may succeed).
In the end, Scoble got his desired attention, lots of people blamed his competitors site while defending Flash as a technology. He won, with a short blog post, no doubt. This guy has a very high IQ, no doubt about that either.
July 9, 2006 in Flash | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c73d553ef00d8349e58ca53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Scoble vs. Flash - Scoble wins, Flash does not lose...:
Comments
Actually, I've seen normal users who refuse to load anything because they are worried about getting viruses and malware and all that crap. If they saw a screen like the one I saw they'd hit back and just go somewhere else.
Posted by: Robert Scoble at Jul 9, 2006 2:33:51 AM
I have no proof, I haven't done any testing, sure some people, 'normal' or not, will hit the back button.
For the majority of users who are concerned about viruses, I think, the deciding factor will be their trust for the site. If they see this on microsoft.com or google.com, I think they'll choose to download the plug-in.
Flash penetration figures (even for version 8, which is relatively new) are pretty impressive. If normal users are not downloading it, who do? Are we living in a geek world?
As I've said, I have no proof, just my gut feeling which I trust.
Best regards,
Burak
Posted by: Burak KALAYCI at Jul 9, 2006 3:11:04 AM
Robert wrote: "Actually, I've seen normal users who refuse to load anything because they are worried about getting viruses and malware and all that crap."
That's true. That first foothold on the desktop is a critical decision. Absolutely right.
After that, though, things that are in the sandbox are real easy decisions to make. :)
(This is part of why I'm bullish on platform-neutral RIAs.)
Posted by: John Dowdell at Jul 9, 2006 7:03:35 AM
Good point about Scoble using Firefox on his Vista. On IE it would likely automatically trigger the activeX install rather than give the user an option to download the plugin like, dare I say it, more sensible browsers do.
You have to wonder if that 'normal user' he alludes to would be the kind of audience that installs Firefox in the first place, if you hit the back button when you need to install a plugin surely you wouldn't be the kind of person that would typically install another browser than the one installed by default on your OS, would you?
Posted by: Peter Elst at Jul 9, 2006 11:01:22 AM
Another point to mention, once the Flash Player is installed on IE we have that great user experience of 'click to interact' thanks to the Eolas case. Is what Scoble describes actually anything to do with Flash or rather the way browsers choose to handle *any* plugin.
I'd challenge him to create a semi-transparent, non-rectangular windows media video file with overlayed captioning and customized controls and get back to us with why using FLV is a bad idea.
Posted by: Peter Elst at Jul 9, 2006 11:08:33 AM
JD wrote "That first foothold on the desktop is a critical decision."
I agree.
But I think without scientific statistical data, we all depend our own emprical experiences. I have recently seen a 'normal' user who would download *anything*, because he thought his recent find, Firefox, was safe and secure (unlike IE)...
On the other hand, Scoble may have a point there (which I missed -thanks Peter-), my 'normal' user wouldn't have installed Firefox and would be using IE... (This also may mean that he knows about Flash already and will visit Adobe for downloading it right after Firefox installation).
But then again, I think a site can get away without Flash detection. Most sites will show a link for downloading Flash (rather than falling back to HTML content). And because Flash is a everywhere (and trusted), it won't take any user too long to get it.
Another point, after a vanilla install of OS and the browser, if a normal user is going to a site (within minutes, before he has Flash), I think there's a really good chance he knows the site and will install the plug-ins required.
Bottom line: It's arguable if a user will hit download or back button. Chances are good most people won't see that page because they'll already have Flash plug-in installed.
Bottom line: Again as Peter mentioned, Scoble's argument applies to any plug-in technology not shipped with a browser.
If Scoble said he was using Windows 98 or Linux, and visited a site that required Flash 8, his argument would be much more valid against Flash (at least for the time being).
Best regards,
Burak
Posted by: Burak KALAYCI at Jul 9, 2006 1:57:54 PM
The real point of Flash detection is to avoid presenting a "broken" experience to users who don't have the plugin, but rather a) show them equivilant HTML content or b) explain why your content is so awesome they should bother downloading a plugin, and walk them through the process. Why wouldn't you employ some form of detection? It's trivial to do.
Now, I haven't personally conducted surveys of thousands of 'average' users and analyzed their surfing habits, but there IS empirical data on the subject, and it would seem to agree with Scoble's view - "missing plugin" message == Bad Thing.
However, Scoble's insinuation that Flash is somehow to blame for this seems irresponsible and a blog marketing ploy. It's kind of the equivilant of the "missing plugin" message: it's broken, and makes me hit my back button.
Posted by: Tom Lee at Jul 10, 2006 4:46:35 PM
Hi Burak, really, you should stop reading that kind of rubbish! :)
Posted by: Christian at Jul 11, 2006 1:48:28 AM
