The one thing that I absolutely need right now for a Web App (it's a Web-based remote control front-end that takes the place of an existing desktop application) is a way to connect to an previously-existing raw binary TCP/IP socket (NOT an HTTP server), and exchange information asynchronously, with the server pushing new data to the client continually without any prompting or "pulling", and vice-versa from the client to the server.
Out of curiosity, is there some reason that a Java applet's not suitable for this?
Adobe has made the search engine SDK available for years now, so Google, and all other search engines written to do so CAN see the content in a Flash file (try a google search ending in "filetype:swf"). As can screen readers using MSAA (like Jaws and Windows Eyes, the two dominant screen readers in the world.
As you are no doubt aware, there is a wide gap between theory and practice. In theory, Flash is a very accessible, open format that presents information for automated access just like HTML does. In practice, search engine support sucks compared to non-Flash content, and Section 508 compliance is exceedingly difficult.
ActionScript is based on the SAME ECMA standard that JavaScript is based on; it has nearly the same implementation and structure of any OOP language (take time to learn it rather than bash it).
That's like saying that Java is just like C because they're similar in syntax. The problem with ActionScript isn't the syntax, but rather the implementation.
And, yes, Flash offers something HTML/CSS/JS doesn't: TOTAL control over the user experience, and a development environment that doesn't require years of programming experience (that's what it was made for!).
What do you mean "total control over the user experience"?
As for the development environment... yes, Flash is more newbie friendly. That doesn't make it a better choice. Arguing that it does is like arguing that VB is better for application creation because it doesn't require years of programming experience.
As I said, it's easy to find bad, resource-intensive examples of Flash. But so too with JavaScript. Saying "Flash sucks" is like saying "JavaScript sucks because I don't like pop-up windows", or "Photoshop sucks because I found a bunch of idiots building web pages out of huge images."
The problem isn't that it's easy to find bad uses of Flash -- it's that it's hard to find good uses of it. I have yet to see a Flash-based solution that does things in a more efficient, more portable manner than a HTML/CSS/JS equivalent.
I know that individual examples don't make a language (otherwise nobody would ever use, say, PHP or Java) -- but when the majority of uses of a language/framework do things in a less-efficient, less-portable, more-resource hungry manner than their direct competitor, you have to wonder if perhaps it's not just the usage but also the implementation that sucks.
Adobe (and Macromedia before them) have made the Flash specifications - containing the information necessary to author your own Flash content without making use of any Adobe tools - freely available since 1998.
You're leaving out something: up until very recently, you couldn't use those specifications to develop a competing implementation. That pretty much blows the "open standard" argument out of the water. Yes, now it's different, but up until last year it was less of an "open standard" than OOXML -- and that's saying something.
Using Flash to stop people for the most part going and taking the files works. 99%+ of the population will not bother trying to get around it.
Except, thanks to the internet, the <1% that can will write an easy-to-use point and click tool to help the 99% that can't.
That's a better success rate than door locks. So, do you lock your door? After all, I can buy a lockpick from lots of places.
Yes, but that's because lockpicking still requires skill. If the lockpicks were point and click, I honestly wouldn't bother.
For rental models (and things like the iPlayer are unquestionably a rental model, and save a lot over taking permanent copies), DRM is a good thing. It gives consumers choice.
No, it's a bad thing. It's legal to tape a show for personal use. DRM, at least like Hulu et. al. use, prevents me from doing something that I would be legally allowed to do were it broadcast via conventional methods. Taking away user rights is never a good thing unless you're the content provider.
