What’s wrong about this argument? Would all Flash content that uses rollover just work on mobile touch devices or would some kind of modification be necessary? I’m really curious about that.
The other problem with this argument is that Jobs is saying that it's just as easy to rewrite the flash app in javascript as it to remove the reliance on rollovers. Whereas for the vast majority of the flash apps, removing rollovers is much easier than a complete rewrite.
I think you misread Jobs. He thinks of this as a transition of the web from desktop to mobile. He thinks HTML+JS is the future and the gains of supporting “legacy” stuff like Flash are diminutive because it wouldn’t “just run”.
If they're based on rollovers only, no. But again -- the argument is bogus because it makes it sound as if EVERY Flash content relies on rollovers alone (they don't - click or dragging is the norm) and that it's a Flash only problem (it's not, as I know plenty of websites that rely on rollovers for menus and as such just don't work on a mobile, touch-based browser).
I think you're reading too much into this. Many flash experiences do rely on rollovers for discovery. Obviously, not all of them do. Some of them do, but have sort-of-workarounds that are not so great. I mean, check out some of the most popular uses of flash, and note that they DO use pointer rollovers (say high to the newest youtube player).
He's making a very reasonable point: Lots of web UI decisions have to be re-evaluated within the scope of touch-based interfaces. Since we're rewriting, why use flash when open standards exist?
I feel like this is the #1 argument that flash-defenders dance around. What justification does Flash, as it stands currently, have to exist on the web in the face of HTML5? What does it bring to the table that HTML5 isn't busy providing a more compatible and open implementation for?
