The context of this story

Products: iPhone

Flash versus H.264

When Apple introduced the iPhone several months ago, commentators wondered why Adobe Flash was missing from the phone. This was mainly because its absence would prevent access to interesting video content, especially on YouTube. It was estimated—and Apple gave such signals—that the company would deliver its own version of Flash. Instead, Apple made a deal with Google to recode YouTube videos into the H.264 format for mobile phones. Why did this happen?

Flash is very widespread in the world of computers, but it is also one of the worst modern formats for video playback. Its widespread use among clients has led to its mass use on servers. However, those who don’t have to use it encode video into something else. Furthermore, the Flash VP6 codec is not standardized; it is a proprietary On2 format that no one has access to. What does this mean? For example, there are no hardware decoders for Flash video on the market, while there are a number of chips for H.264. Flash video must therefore be decoded directly by the device’s processor, which both burdens it and prevents it from responding quickly enough to user requests when it is busy with Flash. Ultimately, this means unpleasantly high power requirements for mobile devices and thus battery life. These are good enough reasons to bypass Flash.

In contrast, H.264 is an approved standard in mobile phones (in the form of 3GP) and in IT.

And there is another reason. Apple may be concerned that the same thing will happen in telecommunications as happened in IT. Years ago, the original developer of Flash (later acquired by Adobe) paid Microsoft to install Flash in its browser. Microsoft accepted because the offer was attractive and did not significantly conflict with its interests.

A few years later, it became clear what the Flash developers were aiming for: over time, they turned Flash into a platform for internet video, among other things. Anyone who wanted to work with video on the internet and reach as many users as possible had little choice but to purchase tools from Adobe. Adobe thus dominated the internet video segment in most of its verticals.

With Flash Lite, Adobe is attempting a similar breakthrough. Flash Lite is a limited set of classic Flash features and does not yet include any significant support for video. However, a number of companies have already started to build it into their devices. Nokia is putting it into some S60 phones. Sony Ericsson, NTT DoCoMo, and LG are going further, using Flash Lite as the basis for the GUI of some of their more advanced mobile phones. Verizon has included Flash Lite in its BREW strategy. Actively supporting Flash in mobile video still means putting a cuckoo’s egg in the nest.

Of course, the reason could also be that the iPhone wasn’t ready for Flash, but a strategic intention is more likely. In recent years, Apple has been trying to push open standards rather than proprietary technologies. And this openness is beginning to pay off—the products that are based on it are enjoying success. But the counterargument to the iPhone’s lack of Flash support is the fact that Safari on the iPhone handles CSS, JavaScript, and Ajax, the traditional Achilles’ heel of mobile browsers, very well.

Table of contents