Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming

Is HTML5 Ready To Take Over From Flash? 468

Posted by kdawson
from the jumping-jack-html5 dept.
The Flash platform has been taking body blows lately. First Apple, then Scribd, publicly abandon it; now ARM's marketing VP is blaming a delay in ARM smartbooks on the continuing unsuitability of Flash for the subnotebook market. But how ready is HTML5 to take over from Flash? Tim Bray offers a cautionary appraisal of the not-yet-a-standard's state of grace. While Flash may be on the way out (or so legions of its detractors hope), it is still important in many corners of the Web. Here a branding expert demonstrates that the sites of 10 out of 10 leading worldwide brands don't display on the iPad — because they're coded in Flash, of course.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is HTML5 Ready To Take Over From Flash?

Comments Filter:
  • I understand that Flash is on its way out, but it is still widely used. Why doesn't the iPad support future AND current technologies (HTML5 and Flash).

    Don't give me mouseover as an answer, either. There are ways around that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by beelsebob (529313)

      Because when you do that, the current never stops being current. Apple have a habit of forcing old, useless techs out the door... They did it with floppies, they did it with parallel ports, they did it with PS/2 connectors, and now they're doing it with flash.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544)

        Really? That's funny, I seem to recall CRT televisions and flatscreen televisions being sold simultaneously. Good luck finding a CRT at a major or even semi-major retailer.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ArsonSmith (13997)

          Flatscreens and CRTs aren't the best example because a flatscreen is a clear and easy to see upgrade from CRTs in almost every respect (don't bother pointing out your personal gripe against flatscreens)

          A better example would be HD broadcast TV, do you really think everyone would have just aggreed to change over if the guberment didn't force it?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Pojut (1027544)

            Flatscreens and CRTs aren't the best example because a flatscreen is a clear and easy to see upgrade from CRTs in almost every respect (don't bother pointing out your personal gripe against flatscreens)

            Fair enough. For the record, my only personal gripe against flatscreens is that my legacy consoles look like crusted ass on them. Other than that, I love my flatscreen :-)

            A better example would be HD broadcast TV, do you really think everyone would have just aggreed to change over if the guberment didn't force it?

            I think people slowly would have, yes. It wouldn't happen as quickly as it did of course, but it would have happend.

            As another poster further down pointed out, you can still readily buy motherboards that have PS/2 ports on them, but you can't really buy PS/2 keyboards or mice anymore. Nearly every modern motherboard also still has at l

            • my only personal gripe against flatscreens is that my legacy consoles look like crusted ass on them.

              That's not a difference between flat and CRT; that's a difference between low and high resolution. Classic console emulators look fine on a 256x192 pixel screen of a DS. But classic consoles would also look like behind on a CRT that upscales to 1080p-class resolution, such as a PC with a TV-in card and a 1600x1200 pixel CRT computer monitor.

              As another poster further down pointed out, you can still readily buy motherboards that have PS/2 ports on them, but you can't really buy PS/2 keyboards or mice anymore.

              The last time I bought a bargain-basement PC keyboard at Office Depot, it was PS/2, probably because a USB keyboard controller is slightly more expensive than a keyboard

              • by Pojut (1027544)

                That's not a difference between flat and CRT; that's a difference between low and high resolution. Classic console emulators look fine on a 256x192 pixel screen of a DS. But classic consoles would also look like behind on a CRT that upscales to 1080p-class resolution, such as a PC with a TV-in card and a 1600x1200 pixel CRT computer monitor.

                I'm not a moron, you know. I'm aware of the difference that resolution makes. Unless you can find me a LCD/Plasma TV that has a standard def native resolution, my one criticism of flatscreens still stands.

                The last time I bought a bargain-basement PC keyboard at Office Depot, it was PS/2, probably because a USB keyboard controller is slightly more expensive than a keyboard controller for the (public domain) PS/2 interface.

                Sorry, should have been more specific...you can't buy quality, mid-to-upper-range keyboards with a PS/2 connector...although many of them still come with a USB-to-PS/2 adapter, strangely enough

                Part of that is because 1. people are upgrading from computers with parallel ATA drives and want to connect their old drives to transfer data without having to buy an external USB enclosure

                Exactly. And people still want to be able to view sites and play games that are Flash based while the makers of

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by loutr (626763)

          The difference between a CRT and flatscreen TV is obvious. People see LCDs in stores, or at a friend's house, and that makes them want to switch. And then there's marketing of course.

          The general public doesn't know, and doesn't care whether a site is made in Flash or HTML5. You can't wait on the users to switch to HTML5 sites.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          That analogy is so bad it's not even wrong.

          In the software environment, if something does wedge then old out, it becomes a night mare.
          The greatest example of that is IE6.

          Yeah, TV's will go bad and get replaced, software just gets moved form system to system.

        • by Altus (1034)

          Better comparison for TVs. Digital vs Analog tuners. Analog tuners were forced out we would still be on Analog without a hard break. There is no regulatory body that can set a date by which flash must die so its up to the industry to do it.

      • by kjart (941720)

        Because when you do that, the current never stops being current. Apple have a habit of forcing old, useless techs out the door... They did it with floppies, they did it with parallel ports, they did it with PS/2 connectors, and now they're doing it with flash.

        My motherboard still has a PS/2 connector, but it's not like you can buy PS/2 keyboards anymore. You can push future technology and still not be a douche to everyone using the old stuff.

        • by saboola (655522)
          Yeah, but your bundled PS/2 port was not causing any grief to your system stability as a whole, so it's not really a good comparison. Flash has performed incredibly poor on both Mac OS and Linux, and many sites still require it.
        • by Bigbutt (65939)

          I still have a 9pin Din on my keyboard (old IBM Model M) with a 9pin to PS/2 conversion plug. That plugs into my kvm and the extension cable has a PS/2 connector on the end for the keyboard and mouse.

          [John]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ClosedSource (238333)

        It's interesting to me that you mention PS/2 connectors. As part of a development project my client gave me a Mac Mini.

        Now the mini has been pushed as the easiest way for a PC user to switch to a Mac. But guess what - I couldn't plug my existing keyboard into it, I couldn't plug my existing mouse into it and I couldn't plug my existing headset into it. Fortunately, Apple did provide an adapter so you could connect it to a monitor with a VGA connector.

        So rather than being a device to convince users to switch

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MBGMorden (803437)

          You can get adapters to convert PS/2 keyboard and mice to USB. You can find them for ~$10 or so easily. I use one on my PC at work where it didn't come with PS/2 ports. That's about the best you're going to get anyways, as Apple never used PS/2. Prior to the adoption of USB input devices, they used ADB ports.

        • and pray tell, where would they put two PS/2 connectors on a mac mini?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Qwavel (733416)

        Apple has a habit of forcing any connector or standard (formal or de-facto) that they don't control out the door.
        http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/ipads-lack-of-flashusbbluetooth-is-all-about-lock-in-updated/5922 [zdnet.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I understand that Flash is on its way out, but it is still widely used. Why doesn't the iPad support future AND current technologies (HTML5 and Flash).

      There are many reasons, but one of the big ones is Apple is one of the driving forces making Flash on the way out. Without their refusal to support it, most all of the prominent sites in question would still be suing it.

      As to why Apple wants it to go away, there are lots of reasons but the most important is probably, it is just good business. Apple doesn't want any one company to be able to roadblock their ability to move their platform forward with regard to performance, security, or features. Allowing Fla

      • Why do you assume that it's all because of Apple? Next thing we'll be hearing about how Apple invented HTML5.

      • by knarf (34928) on Friday May 07, 2010 @10:00AM (#32126990) Homepage

        As to why Apple wants it to go away, there are lots of reasons but the most important is probably, it is just good business.

        Apple wants Flash - and any other platform which can be used to create something resembling an application - to go away because those platforms allow others to target their precious without paying the ferryman. If someone were to find a way to create installable apps using only the stuff installed on their platform they'd find a way to disable it come the next firmware release and/or write some clause into the EULA that explicitly forbids some essential part of the process. Apple goods are to be used as Apple says they should.

        After all, quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi...

        • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday May 07, 2010 @10:24AM (#32127470)

          Apple wants Flash - and any other platform which can be used to create something resembling an application - to go away...

          This argument would hold some weight if Apple were not pushing HTML5 applications as a viable and free way to host Web applications and if developers weren't using it. It would hold some weight if Apple was making significant money on application sales compared to how much they make on selling the hardware those apps run on. Neither is true. Your hypothesis holds no water.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anomalyst (742352)

          quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi

          Four lice love no cows?
          Probably true someplace on a farm, but kinda offtopic.

    • I understand that Flash is on its way out, but it is still widely used. Why doesn't the iPad support future AND current technologies (HTML5 and Flash).

      Don't give me mouseover as an answer, either. There are ways around that.

      If you support both the old and new technologies, folks have less of an incentive to switch to the new stuff. This can dramatically prolong the life of the old stuff.

      Apple, in the past, has been willing to kill backwards compatibility in favor of new stuff.

      This is just more of the same.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > If you support both the old and new technologies, folks have less of an incentive to switch to the new stuff. This can dramatically prolong the life of the old stuff.

        No. The new stuff not being up to snuff is what dramatically prolongs the life of the old stuff.

        Connectors and media linger because they haven't been properly and naturally displaced.

        Merely declaring something dead just doesn't cut it. You have to actually replace it with something.

    • by !coward (168942)

      Requiring a plugin to browse what would otherwise be "normal" content on the web seems a bit counter-productive to say the least. That said, I've worked with web designers whose attitude towards flash was much like Heston's towards gun ownership: "from my cold dead hands". But working with them, especially the better breed, I can't say I don't understand the appeal. The productivity suite, for starters, is very good and comes from the same company on whose products most of them trained on for years, so ther

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gig (78408)

      > Why doesn't the iPad support future AND current technologies (HTML5 and Flash).

      The funny thing here is I bet you meant Flash is "current" and HTML5 is "future".

      On mobiles -- like iPad -- HTML5 is 3 years old and universal, while Flash has not yet shipped and is of course therefore completely non-existent. In other words, on mobiles, HTML5 is "current" and Flash is "future".

      Adobe has not yet shipped a FlashPlayer for ARM architecture at all. Here are the system requirements for FlashPlayer according to

  • No, at least (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pkphilip (6861) on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:20AM (#32126214)

    before there are authoring tools for HTML5 which are on par with Adobe's Flash authoring tools.. and not before HTML5 becomes as ubiquitous as the Flash plugin.

    • Re:No, at least (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nadaka (224565) on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:38AM (#32126572)

      I hate it when people abuse their mod points. Parent is making a quite reasonable assertion.

    • by tepples (727027)
      Agreed. Someone who wants to replace all the Flash on Newgrounds with HTML5 should first try porting Badgers [badgerbadgerbadger.com] and We Drink Ritalin [albinoblacksheep.com] to HTML5. Do that and I'll admit that HTML5 is ready to replace Flash.
    • Re:No, at least (Score:4, Informative)

      by M. Baranczak (726671) on Friday May 07, 2010 @10:07AM (#32127166)

      And there are still some things that Flash can do but HTML5 can't. Access to the camera and mic, for instance. (Last I checked, JavaFX can't do that either.)

      Yeah, I'd like to have a non-proprietary alternative to Flash too, but we're not quite there yet.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by janeuner (815461)

        Why would I ever want a website to have access to my camera or microphone?

        Are you serious?? Is this just trollbait???

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Just Some Guy (3352)

          Why would I ever want a website to have access to my camera or microphone?

          I've never been on Chatroulette, but it seems popular with the kids these days.

  • Apple showed (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FlyingBishop (1293238)

    That people are quite content to buy a device without Flash support. Now hurry up and build me a Android Netbook for $200. There's no reason for the delay.

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      Yes, and those same people are also quite content with spending $500+ on a purposely crippled device.

      • by alen (225700)

        i've seen the Slate promo videos and the performance was choppy. choice is between's Apple's stripped and crippled OS and a full version of Windows 7 where performance isn't as fast and is a space hog. iphone OS is under 1GB. even if the Slate shipped with a version of WIndows 7 that only took 15GB of space, that's still half your storage taken up by the OS and unusable. its a trade off. and the Android tablets aren't very open either

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Pojut (1027544)

          Or, you could just be patient and wait for a good one. Or, you could take that $500+ and buy a laptop. People can like the interface, they can like Apple, whatever...it doesn't change the fact they are defending their choice to pay more for less.

          Just my opinion, of course.

          • by mikael_j (106439)

            You opinion and your definition of "less", those buying the iPad clearly disagree but then I suspect they don't use the same metric as you do. Most likely they consider the user interface to be a big "more" even though you probably dismiss it as "less tactile feedback than a nomad, lame" (to steal a quote from Cmdrtaco).

          • by diamondsw (685967)

            it doesn't change the fact they are defending their choice to pay more for less. Just my opinion, of course.

            So which is it, fact or opinion? Oh right, it's both - opinion masquerading as fact.

        • nd the Android tablets aren't very open either

          How, exactly, are they not very open? Anybody can develop open or closed source applications for them without paying anything for the SDK or the development tools. The developer can include the application in any market they would like, or they can make the application available on their website. They can give the application away free or charge for it. The developer has total freedom.

          The user has total freedom to download applications from any market or website they would like. They can choose between

      • by david.emery (127135) on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:53AM (#32126852)

        "Crippled?" because it doesn't run Flash? By this definition, I've crippled my laptop by installing flash blockers, and you know, I think I like this "crippled" Web A LOT better. Sure, occasionally, I decide I want to see some video on CNN.com, and it is nice to be able to override the Flash blocker. But I don't miss all those dumb-assed Flash-based ads one bit.

        And when I go to a website that uses only Flash, I think twice about whether this is a company/place I really want to be. As often as not, if there's no "non-Flash" version, I'll just navigate away. Restaurants, in particular, need to understand that all that glitzy Flash stuff is at best annoying to a lot of people, and at worse just does NOT WORK on mobile devices (not just the iPhone!!). You'd think restaurants in particular would want to encourage mobile customers; the onus is on them to make it easier for me to decide where I want to eat.

        I think there are -4- different threads going on here:
            1. The 'whose standards/proprietary world do you like better?' debate between Adobe and Apple, Flash & HTML5 (and its own CODEC wars)
            2. The 'what kind of rich content is important?' debate - is this really "all about video" as some have suggested, or is it about arbitrary rich content?
            3. The 'cross-platform' vs 'optimized for this device' debate (I think this is a really important debate for techies.)
            4. The business decisions about how to best reach customers, along with the customer decisions about what technologies are acceptable (i.e. how far would Flash or JavaScript or HTML5 animations go before they become really annoying)?

        • by MBGMorden (803437) on Friday May 07, 2010 @10:06AM (#32127146)

          A lot of people consider the iPad crippled because you can only install approved apps on it. The refusal to allow flash is just a side effect of that.

          Any general purpose device that only allows programs that meet the approval of the manufacturer to be installed is by my definition crippled, particularly when the reasons for disallowing a common technology are that their corporate dictator just has a grudge against a particular technology.

          If Steve Jobs decides next week that audio-only songs are simply not useful and that from now on only songs with videos can be used on the device, then your are forced to bend over and take it, because you've already signed control of your device over to a technological caretaker.

          It's the antithesis to the democratic way of life - namely that the people should be free to make their own choices - even if they're the "wrong" ones (because too often "wrong" is merely a personal viewpoint). Benevolent dictatorships rarely maintain their benevolence, particularly as the subjects learn over time that just occasionally, their viewpoints don't align with that of those handing down the law.

          • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday May 07, 2010 @12:08PM (#32129246)

            A lot of people consider the iPad crippled because you can only install approved apps on it. The refusal to allow flash is just a side effect of that.

            True, lot of people think that so they buy a different phone and go on with their lives. A few people, however, seem to think they have some sort of inherent right to use both the phone they want, but should be able to force the manufacturer of the phone to customize the phone to their specifications with regard to software and services.

            ...particularly when the reasons for disallowing a common technology are that their corporate dictator just has a grudge against a particular technology.

            It's called business. I used to make expensive security appliances for installation on people's networks. Our clients had no inherent right to dictate to us that we have to install a given OS or software package on our appliances and if they re-imaged them to have different software, we had no obligation to provide support or services to those machines. We didn't make a Windows version of our appliance because we didn't want to be dependent upon Microsoft who could dictate to us what improvements we could make on our appliances. That's a business decision. Apple doesn't want Adobe to be able to dictate to them how secure their phones are or how Web apps perform on them, or if they can provide given features to Web apps. It makes sense to me. Maybe I won't buy an iPhone because I want more flexibility, but unless Apple has monopoly influence, I don't see why I should be able to force them to do something else.

            If Steve Jobs decides next week that audio-only songs are simply not useful and that from now on only songs with videos can be used on the device, then your are forced to bend over and take it, because you've already signed control of your device over to a technological caretaker.

            Were you intending this to be a strawman or a slippery slope logical fallacy?

            It's the antithesis to the democratic way of life - namely that the people should be free to make their own choices

            That Apple should be free to make their own choices or is freedom you being able to tell others what to do? You're free not to buy an iPhone. Apple is free to make the iPhone however they want. That's not the antithesis of freedom. I might mention, democracy and freedom are not the same thing. Democracies do not imply freedom. There are very, very few democratically run companies as it is an unusual business model that takes a lot of cooperation to get started and most investment capital is concentrated.

        • by diamondsw (685967) on Friday May 07, 2010 @10:17AM (#32127350)

          Obligatory. [venomousporridge.com]

  • ...that wealthy shoppers like? BFD (yes... yes... you can say the Apple crowd may dig some of these brands, again, BFD)
  • For video, almost definitely.
    • by pkphilip (6861)

      I don't expect HTML5 to crush Flash even for video.

      Unless a majority of users move over the HTML5 compatible browsers, it isn't going to work.

      Considering how long has IE6 been around despite all of the security vulnerabilities and when you consider that these companies haven't thought these security vulnerabilities as important enough reasons to move their users over to a decent browser, what makes you think that these companies would think the ability to see video on the web being a good enough reason to t

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I don't expect HTML5 to crush Flash even for video. Unless a majority of users move over the HTML5 compatible browsers, it isn't going to work.

        First, all the major browser vendors are making some support for HTML5 in their browsers. Second, for browsers that don't support enough HTML5 for a task, they need a plugin for Flash, or the Google Chrome plugin for HTML5 so they are on par.

        ...what makes you think that these companies would think the ability to see video on the web being a good enough reason to transfer their users to HTML5 compatible browsers?

        I don't think anyone thinks that, but at the same time many of those companies also ban Flash already and those that don't probably won't ban Google Frame.

        • many of those companies also ban Flash already and those that don't probably won't ban Google Frame.

          I disagree. Flash Player comes preinstalled on a lot of PCs, so it's installed before IT has a chance to lock down further installations of software.

      • by i.r.id10t (595143)

        Of course, when porn goes to HTML 5 and its video, everything else will follow.

  • by eison (56778) <pkteison@@@hotmail...com> on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:27AM (#32126338) Homepage

    What's the big deal with scribd lately? Weren't they a worthless site that nobody ever used because it was such a pain to try to read anything there? Or am I completely missing something?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by amentajo (1199437)

      Yeah - they used Flash to display documents, so I never got to use the site. Since they're moving (moved?) content distribution to HTML5, that sentiment might be reversed now.
      Scribd documents show up relatively frequently in my Google searches; I may have to start training my eyes to stop avoiding links to scribd.com.

  • by alen (225700) on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:27AM (#32126350)

    played with Google Wave late last year and it's javascript heavy. with a few public waves on the screen i've seen my browser memory usage jump to around 500MB. this is on all browsers. IE8, Chrome and Firefox. so it looks like a choice between RAM hungry HTML5 and CPU heavy Flash

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pkphilip (6861)

      HTML5 will be CPU-intensive at least for a while before the browsers improve. HTML5 vector graphics will have to go through all the iterations of development and improvement that Flash has already gone through - in a few years, HTML vector graphics will be where Flash is now.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by amentajo (1199437)

      Since it's still in "preview" mode, it may be that optimizations are still forthcoming. If I recall correctly, Wave tried to load all the content in the wave at once, instead of as I scrolled down. There was plenty of room for laziness improvements.

      One such improvement may be rolling up replies to a message thread so that I don't have to load what code Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum are documenting further up in the wave while I spam the bottom with pictures of LOLcats.

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:29AM (#32126396)

    I imagine that those brands don't look at it as "the iPad doesn't have us and needs to support our sites", as much as "we're not reaching iPad users and our sites need to support the iPad".

    • by Have Blue (616) on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:50AM (#32126806) Homepage
      You don't even have to imagine- if you RTFA, it presents this situation as a failure of the luxury sites, not of the iPad.
      • by Sockatume (732728)

        You'd think I'd have learned not to assume from context in the summary.

      • Excellent point. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jamrock (863246)

        it presents this situation as a failure of the luxury sites, not of the iPad.

        Precisely. Coincidentally, a report today from Yahoo [bizjournals.com] offered some stats on iPad users visiting Yahoo's sites:

        The first Yahoo iPad users were 94 percent more likely to be affluent consumers with solid wealth and strong incomes than typical U.S. Yahoo users.

        In other words, the very demographic these luxury brands depend on for their survival. What are the odds that they'll refuse to update their sites to attract them?

        Regardless of

  • by obarthelemy (160321) on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:33AM (#32126454)

    1- it's proprietary, so it's probably condemned in the long term. Seeing Adobe struggle to port it, make it faster, more resource-efficient, expand it... is a sad experience.

    2- it's kinda bad. Even on my desktop PC, I can tell when a site is using flash, because things get jerky. I have it off most of the time.

    3- It misused -a lot- for obnoxious ads.

    OTOH, it's a nice way to have animations, and I'm very grateful to Adobe for having Flash way back when. Gratefulness only goes so far when confronted with complacency, though.

  • by Animaether (411575) on Friday May 07, 2010 @09:33AM (#32126466) Journal

    Stupid question that pivots around every Flash-hating entity's mouth wrapped firmly around Steve Jobs' ... marketing skills.

    What's not to like, then? Well, the user experience, which in my experience is fourth-rate for anything but games

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    Show me an even remotely decent HTML5-based game on par with a remotely decent Flash-based game. Oh snap - you can't.. because HTML5 doesn't specify anything with regard to styles or interactivity. So let's allow jscript, CSS and SVG, too. See if you can get the same performance as Flash. Ready. Set. Go.

    No "Back" button, feaugh.

    That's a problem caused by the author, not Flash itself. Perhaps Flash makes it all too easy to break this standard usability model - probably so. Then again, it takes but a few seconds to find solutions: http://www.google.com/search?q=flash+back+button [google.com]

    But even if this is a major stumbling click, where's the hate for all the *box (lightbox, thickbox, etc.) photo viewers, then? I have yet to see even -one- that adjusts the address bar so that I can link to a specific photo. If I'm lucky, I can still right-click the thing to get the image's direct location and point people there. If I'm unlucky, it's "Okay, so go to http://somegallery/ [somegallery], click next page 3 times, then the 2nd row, 3rd image from the left". Mmmm. If the author did their job well, there'll be a link on the image or somewhere within the frame that I can use. But if Flash isn't excused, why is *box?

    Hey, as far as VIDEO goes, absolutely.. ditch it.. bring on the HTML5 video tag.
    ( preferably without any "only h.264" limitations, especially if the host OS is perfectly capable of playing back pretty much every video format under the moon. Let the market decide - and if the market decides that Indeo5 within an AVI container happens to be a much better for a given video than either of h.264 OR Theora, then why restrict that from being played back? )

    But until something actually better than Flash comes along for -everything else- (except for ads) that Flash does, Flash isn't about to go away - it will merely be reduced to the market it had -before- video sites boomed.

    • by mikael_j (106439)

      ...and if the market decides that Indeo5 within an AVI container happens to be a much better for a given video than either of h.264 OR Theora, then why restrict that from being played back?

      Because knowing "the market" MS or some other major player will come up with some wonderful proprietary "build a youtube clone in ten clicks or less!" "solution" that defaults to Indeo5 in an AVI container and we'll never get rid of it.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      "Show me an even remotely decent HTML5-based game on par with a remotely decent Flash-based game"

      You will. I've seen demo.s, and they where fine.

      " Perhaps Flash makes it all too easy to break this standard usability mod
      It does. And having to go out of your way to fix it is a clear example of it being broken.

      Everything that can be done in flash will be done in HTML5. That includes ads.

    • don't forget webcams and microphones

    • ...where's the hate for all the *box (lightbox, thickbox, etc.) photo viewers, then? I have yet to see even -one- that adjusts the address bar so that I can link to a specific photo. If I'm lucky, I can still right-click the thing to get the image's direct location and point people there.

      So, one of your gripes is that you can't easily steal a website's photo gallery images? Did you ever think that maybe the website doesn't want you to link to their photos directly? As far as the Flash vs HTML debate, this i

  • One is compiled then executed in a VM; the other is already compiled and executed in a VM. In the optimal version of each, Javascript will be slower.

    But since everyone and his mother is concentrating on optimising Javascript, we have the wild achievement that, over a decade after its creation, it might in some experimental scenarios be faster than Flash when employed to do what Flash has been able to do for years.

    What a low powered sub-notebook (palmtop / netbook / whatever kids call it these days) can't do

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by icebraining (1313345)

      Except video, which doesn't require Javascript at all, and already runs better than Flash.

  • Ha, didn't recognize half those "leading" brands and didn't care about the ones I did recognize (Gucci / Rolex / blah).. I don't care for Flash either, but I kind of appreciate Flash (and Flashblock) in that it's a great way to help me filter out all the content on the web I don't care about (the stuff made by design-over-function and advertising types).

    I don't care for Apple, but I applaud them for not supporting a proprietary web "standard". *golf clap* Then again, I'll probably be sad when more annoy

  • HTML5 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dandart (1274360)
    ... is great. JS engines keep getting better and you're not relying on ONE company to make your proprietary closed unreleased technology useful.
    • Great so Apple will open source Final Cut, Quicktime, iTunes, Garage Band, OSX, Iphone OS, iWork etc...

      This is awesome news. Maybe now OSX will run on "regular PC hardware" without hacks! This is fantastic.

      I'm so happy that Apple is against proprietary formats now. Its about time they open source their AAC DRM Scheme and unlock everyones music.

      This is wonderful!

      Adobe makes software that runs on windows and mac... Apple makes software that runs on Mac. Now you tell me whos proprietary and controlling.

      Adobe i

  • I don't care about any of the flash features, so frankly Flash die die die. Flash games usually suck or don't hold my interest for long. Flash ads are not a big loss. Basically the only thing flash was useful for in my use was video sites. So for my simple needs, HTML 5 sites will more than be sufficient.
  • Sure. If you don't mind giving up more than 50 percent of your market. IE still makes up the majority of browser use and it doesn't run html5. It does run flash.

  • Flash has a lot of nice development tools around it that allows designers to create fancy looking sites without the need to understand the quirks of HTML and browser differences. These tools are much easier to deal with than the HTML authoring tools out there.

    For HTML5 to really take over, I think we need a nice suite of authoring tools to create the content that clients want and need.

    On the side of Javascript and HTML5 when it comes to speed, it can be just as slow and power-hungry as flash. I've deploye

  • Yes.

    Thank you.

  • Hey folks, let's look on the bright side. At least it is HTML5, not Silverlight, that is being positioned to replace Flash. Non-Windows users rejoice!
  • by Gribflex (177733) on Friday May 07, 2010 @10:09AM (#32127208) Homepage

    The comment about the 'Top 10 brands' in the post is very misleading.

    "...the sites of 10 out of 10 leading worldwide brands don't display on the iPad..."

    What is actually demonstrated is that "...the sites of 10 out of 10 leading [LUXURY] brands don't display on the iPad..."

    The top 10 brands (listed here: http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx [interbrand.com]) are:
    Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, GE, Nokia, McDonalds, Google, Toyota, Intel, Disney

    The top 10 luxury brands reviewed in the article are:
    Prada, Fendi, Moet, Cartier, Hennessy, Rolex, Channel, Gucci, Hermes, Louis Vuitton

    Could we get a summary correction to specify that it's actually the Luxury brands that are looked at, not 'normal' brands? I think it's a pretty important distinction, as the luxury brands likely have much less traffic, and have traditionally not been designed for content consumption but are more advertising platforms.

  • Obviously, the biggest use of Flash on the web is embedded video, but this is hardly the only use, and those are seldom mentioned in the HTML5 v. Flash discussions. With Scribd converting to HTML5, the field seems to be opening up (though their use of Flash always struck me as being an anti-copying measure more than anything else).

    So far as I know, HTML5 isn't suitable for things like graphical configurators or 3D models (allowing the user to rotate them) -- or is it? There's QTVR for 3D stuff, but it's alw

  • that may be the only real place where flash have anything to offer vs html5, once animated SVG gets included.

    but then again, if i dont have to see another effect overloaded promo page for some movie, game or other "lifestyle" product, i will be a happy surfer.

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal

Working...