Is HTML5 Ready To Take Over From Flash? 468
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.
See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Parallel ATA (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that it's all because of Apple? Next thing we'll be hearing about how Apple invented HTML5.
Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
How is Apple pushing HTML5?
By being one of the authors of the spec, by implementing it in their browser and contributing to Webkit so it is implemented in other browsers, by refusing to implement Flash or Silverlight so Web developers that want to reach many of Apple's users are forced to use HTML5, and by widely touting HTML5 in the press until many developers and business people are familiar with the term and associate it with the direction of technology.
Just because Steve posts his open letter doesn't mean he gives a flying fsck about something that makes him no money.
Ah, but it does make him money when he builds Web services on top of it. More importantly, it prevents others from being a roadblock to him making money by selling Macs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads. People buy more Apple devices if those devices are secure, and Macs are more secure and less crashy if they don't have to deal with Flash.
It's like you're saying the app store doesnt make them enough money to matter but HTML5 with it's 0 revenue is what matters.
The app store makes them very little money in comparison to selling devices, but it indirectly motivates those sales of devices. It's like saying good television doesn't make Samsung any money, but it motivates people to buy their televisions so they care about it.
This argument would hold some weight if you could sell HTML5 apps in the app store.
Umm, you can and many developers do and Apple has specifically stated dev kits like Phonegap, created for this purpose continue to be acceptable even with the new developer agreement.
You dont think Apple is making significant money from the app store? How about 30% of every app sold in a several hundred million dollar business.
Which, assuming Apple has very, very low costs and hasn't been selling any music or video, still only amounts to about 6% of their revenue (absurdly optimistic ideas), compared to the 40% or so of their revenue coming from sales of iPhones, iPads, and IPod Touch devices. Apple runs the app store at slightly more than break even prices, as Jobs has publicly stated to shareholders, so unless you think he's violating SEC rules and jeopardizing his company over a few percent of revenue, you just don't know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Four lice love no cows?
Probably true someplace on a farm, but kinda offtopic.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
> 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
They're orthogonal (Score:2)
I think one of the biggest problems with Flash and touchbased devices is the lack of mouseover functionality.
Mouseover and Flash are completely orthogonal concepts. How does Safari on your iPhone or iPad handle HTML5 pages that use onmouseover="return handler()" or el.addEventListener("mouseover", handler, false)?
Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
The web is ruled by web DESIGNERS and not developers/coders.
Unless someone comes up with a tool that does the same dynamic websites, animations, vector image drawing etc in HTML5 with the ease that non-coder designers can do in Flash, you won't be seeing Flash dying anytime soon.
Moreover, Adobe is in the business of selling creative authoring tools and not directly with Flash itself.
As such, with HTML5 as an emerging standard, Adobe is now going try to make the best darn-tootin' tools for creating HTML5 content [digitalbackcountry.com] according to Adobe's CTO Kevin Lynch.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The web is ruled by web DESIGNERS
Web is ruled by BUSINESS
The Web is ruled by USERS
You're all wrong. The web is ruled by the Judean People's Front.
Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me offer an analogy (hey, this is
Now, to bring it home. Why do businesses create web sites? To create revenue, of course. Typically, this means a commercial web site exists to advertise the company's products. If the tech (for example, Flash) used to implement the web site excessively limits the number of users that can view said web site, then the web site is not meeting its design goals.
Case in point: last year, I was looking for a new motorcycle. I visited Honda's web site, Suzuki's web site, Yamaha's web site and Triumph's web site. All of those web sites except for Honda's rendered just fine in my browser. While I won't claim that the web site is the only reason for the purchase decision I made, I will state that the fact that I couldn't look on-line to see what Honda offered certainly affected my choice. In the end, I purchased a Suzuki. Honda may have had a better bike that met my specs, but if they did, the local dealer didn't have one, and I couldn't view Honda's web site to search for a bike that the local dealer could have special ordered.
Unfortunately, in the real world, PHB's often don't know what tech is available, and therefore rely upon their designers to offer them choices. In that case, the designer does, in fact, rule the web. The designer codes up a spiffy web site with whatever (crappy) tools they know, show it to the PHB, who has no clue that the whiz-bang web site *only* renders correctly on the exact version of IE that (s)he and the designer are using, and therefore gives a thumbs up to a web site that will only look good to two thirds of the web site's visitors, and the remaining third shop somewhere else.
*Just in case my PHB does end up reading this post, he actually is more technically savvy than the rest of us in the office, and all of his tech choices are really, really good. Can I have my raise now?
No, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
I hate it when people abuse their mod points. Parent is making a quite reasonable assertion.
Port badgers and ritalin (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, at least (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, most applications don't need this functionality. But for the ones that do, there's absolutely no substitute. If Flash was a new, emerging technology, then this wouldn't be enough - but in fact, it's well-established, stable, and ubiquitous. It might become less popular in the near future, but it ain't dying anytime soon.
Isn't that what I said? :)
Apple showed (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and those same people are also quite content with spending $500+ on a purposely crippled device.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like he said... you're opinion is different than most. I still don't understand why anyone here makes such a big deal about the fact that Apple creates products that aren't designed for them.
You've basically said that you don't understand that people have different opinions than you. People aren't paying for less. They are paying for what they want. "Less" has nothing to do with anything. Less than what? Less than what you want? Less than what someone else provides?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
I like the 'crippled' web - and conflated topics (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)?
Re:I like the 'crippled' web - and conflated topic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I like the 'crippled' web - and conflated topic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And by your rationale, every company that produces any product should be forced to provided everything that anyone might want no matter what.
Why does this tired lined get trotted out time and time again. Nobody is saying Apple should provide a darned thing. Nobody is saying Apple should write a flash plugin. Nobody is saying that Apple should provide a version of strip poker on the iPhone.
What we're saying is that if someone wants to create such a thing themselves, and then put it on their phone/pad, or wants to give it to other people to do the same, then the manufacturer should butt the hell out.
There's a big difference between saying that
Restaurant websites in flash, you say? (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory. [venomousporridge.com]
So basically a bunch of brands... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not for everything. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Flash Player comes installed before lockdown (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, when porn goes to HTML 5 and its video, everything else will follow.
Why should anyone care about scribd? (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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.
i've seen javascript slow down my machines (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Looking at it the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Looking at it the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think I'd have learned not to assume from context in the summary.
Excellent point. (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. Coincidentally, a report today from Yahoo [bizjournals.com] offered some stats on iPad users visiting Yahoo's sites:
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
I've got 2 issues with Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I've got 2 issues with your post (Score:5, Funny)
1. You can't count.
OTOH, it does echo what everyone else is saying on this site, so it's probably pretty insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
2 and 3 will also be coming with HTML 5.
I don't know what people thing HTML 5 won't be used for all kinds of ads,and that everyone writing code in it will be perfect coders.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, that won't happen with HTML5.</snark>
Re:I've got 2 issues with Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
3- It misused -a lot- for obnoxious ads.
This, in my opinion, is a great reason to keep Flash around.
Yes, it is used an awful lot for an awful lot of obnoxious ads... And I can quickly and easily get rid of those ads just by disabling flash.
How am I going to get rid of the obnoxious ads written in HTML5?
Answer: No. Unless you only mean video. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid question that pivots around every Flash-hating entity's mouth wrapped firmly around Steve Jobs' ... marketing skills.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Flash frame rate is 2.5 times that of Canvas (Score:2)
You will. I've seen demo.s, and they where fine.
On one PC I tried, I get roughly 50 fps on Flash and 20 fps on HTML5 Canvas running this demo [themaninblue.com].
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget webcams and microphones
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/mariokart/ [nihilogic.dk]
javascript vs flash (Score:2)
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)
Except video, which doesn't require Javascript at all, and already runs better than Flash.
I could care less... (Score:2)
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
Re:I could care less... (Score:5, Informative)
You couldn't care less.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
hey, I cared enough to bother making a post :P
HTML5 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
It may not be, but I sure am ready! (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple Answer: No (Score:2)
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
Answer: (Score:2)
Yes.
Thank you.
Look on the bright side (Score:2)
Top 10 brand comment very misleading. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
HTML5 can't replace Flash in all cases, right? (Score:2)
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
synced audio and graphics... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
not a scientific test, but i swear flash performs better on the P4 compared to modern intel CPU's
Re:Hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
People are trying to do more with it.
Well written flash from 7 years ago would probably run just fine on modern low power hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash 7 years ago was just beginning to perform data access; most Flash apps back then were static animations like fancy mouseovers.
Back in the here-and-now, I ask this: can you duplicate MLB Gameday [mlb.com] with HTML 5?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I could not agree more. But, then again, thank goodness that there is a 500 LB gorilla in the room that can help us to finally get rid of Flash. God, I hate that product.
Mind you, my feelings about Flash are not as a developer, but as a user...
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem, Apple will just supplant them...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
canvas { display: none }