×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Is HTML5 Ready To Take Over From Flash?

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the jumping-jack-html5 dept.

Programming 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126200)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126342)

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

Because Apple knows damn well that HTML5 - something virtually nobody is using right now and won't be in the near future - is not something that will ever be used on the iPad so, in the meantime, they can keep a huge number of existing apps off of their products and force their customers even further into the app store.

I'd love to sell a p-p-p-powerbook to anybody who believes that Apple's Flash shunning is anything more than an attempt to further lock their customers into the app store. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is betting that HTML5 is the next VRML as far as the web goes.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (3, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126348)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126402)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (2, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126622)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126728)

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 least one IDE connector on it, despite the fact that a completely SATA-based system has been possible for a couple years now.

Parallel ATA (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126914)

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 controller for the (public domain) PS/2 interface.

Nearly every modern motherboard also still has at least one IDE connector on it, despite the fact that a completely SATA-based system has been possible for a couple years now.

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, and 2. the first PC SSDs were pin adapters from CompactFlash to parallel ATA. CF hasn't switched to SATA yet.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126962)

Just curious, how do you think flatscreens are better than CRTs ?

The only clear and easy to see advantage over CRTs is the size/weight difference. There's a power usage advantage as well, but that's not obvious to the average person. CRTs had better image quality - you need a fairly recent flatscreen to get close to CRT levels.

The government didn't force HD broadcast, everyone did do that on their own. I think you mean digital broadcasting.

I think you've got all your technologies blurred together. You can get an HD CRT TV, and it'll look better than a cheap LCD or a high end one from several years ago. Digital broadcasting has nothing to do with HD. There's plenty of SD being broadcast in digital now.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (2, Insightful)

loutr (626763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126680)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126814)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127036)

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.

Retarded Fantasy World (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126512)

With only a handful of comments you managed to make the single stupidest post this story will have.

A post with ASCII art depicting Natalie Portman farting rainbows while riding a unicorn anally raping the goatse guy would be more based in reality than the delusional crap you just crapped out of your keyboard.

Here's a quiz Einstein. What year and month did Floppy Disc production end? What year did Apple and its 3 percent worldwide marketshare stop including Floppy Drives in their overpriced hardware?

Re:Retarded Fantasy World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126586)

You win the Internets, sir.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126602)

Hardly useless - they also chucked stuff like PCMCIA, replaceable batteries, and full size connectors that don't require dongles and messy adapters to connect to everything.

Apple is just a fashionista. No real artists even bother with their crap anymore. Their screens aren't even calibrated properly.

(spoken as an *ex* Mac user)

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (0, Troll)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126906)

PCMCIA

In it's latest incarnation (express card), you can still get it on apple laptops

replaceable batteries

Great example of apple dumping useless crap like batteries you can replace every day. If your battery lasts 10 hours, you have no need to replace it in a day, in the same way as you have no need to replace hard disks every day... Or do you complain that you can't remove your hard disk without undoing a few screws?

full size connectors

You mean like MiniDisplay Port, that has now pretty much become the standard display port connector?

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126650)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

saboola (655522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126864)

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.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126874)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126886)

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.

I still own slaves, but it's not like you can BUY slaves anymore. You can stop the selling of slaves and still not be a douche to everyone using them.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126754)

IMHO, none of those things are useless, or really old.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126876)

Floppy Disks, Parallel Ports, PS/2 Connectors, Flash. One of these things is not like the other, can you guess which it is? If you said 3 of them are hardware and one of them is software, you win a prize bingo.

When Jobs previewed the iphone, he harked on and on about how buttons (hardware) were bad because they were static, you wanted to be able to adapt to new software. The ipad fails at accomodating EXISTING software. That is a failure of the device...it has a static failure to run existing widespread software.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (2, Interesting)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126882)

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 to the Mac platform, it's really an introduction to Apple's limited vision.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (2, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126968)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126900)

*Why* do people think apple dictates what's going out of style? Don't you think that the fact that anything relevant would have require dozens of floppy disks to carry around?

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

MotherErich (535455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126956)

You are aware that you're comparing Hardware to Software right? How many programming languages has Apple killed to date? HTML5 doesn't make Flash obsolete, and neither with will Steve Jobs. If any informed reader took the time to examine Steve's six reasons for abandoning Flash, they'd find that Jobs has clearly fallen off the deep end. His logic is filled with holes that only the Apple cool-aide drinkers will overlook. All of this goes on top of the fact that if Apple's mobile technology determines the future of the web, we're all screwed.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126520)

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 Flash on their products allows Adobe to do just that for a large subset of Web applications Apple is counting on. Apple isn't supporting Flash for the same reason smart governments are moving away from .doc, they want control and choices and not to have one vendor with the ability to dictate terms to them.

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126924)

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 (4, Insightful)

knarf (34928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126990)

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...

Re:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

macbuzz01 (1074795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126574)

I think one of the biggest problems with Flash and touchbased devices is the lack of mouseover functionality.

They're orthogonal (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126976)

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 (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126788)

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:See, this is what I've been saying on Slashdot (1)

!coward (168942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126960)

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 there's continuity too.

That some uses of flash will inevitably die can only be considered a Good Thing(TM). And this will happen with or without the iPad (or any other iProduct) -- most likely *in spite* of them, because the shift right now, as some posters have correctly pointed out in the myriad of similar threads we've been having on the matter as of late, is that the iEcoSystem is simply being sent to a special iSubSet of the web where things "Just Work" so iCustomers aren't left out -- or worse, having to download and use a plugin for certain content (and I'd imagine this is one plugin *per* site that employs such strategy). And while Apple certainly has a lot of pull, especially in some circles, I can't help but think of how well that worked out for the WAP protocol -- having separate "webs" or requiring installation of plugins just so you can browse certain content on sites is bad for everyone (and the latter, plugins, is a really boneheaded solution to a problem that stems from not wanting plugins for content in the first place).

In an ideal world, one where the W3C and other authoritative bodies were impervious to commercial interests, we'd have web standards that every browser interpreted and used correctly (such that navigating the same page with any one of them would produce the exact same result), that included all the constructs necessary for creators to freely express themselves without feeling the need to resort to closed-source/proprietary plugins/technology, and nobody would even *think* of proposing any technological solution that was encumbered by patents or royalty schemes. Sadly, this is not the world we live in and I fully expect these issues to increase as the web and the internet at large expands further.

One thing, though: "ARM's marketing VP is blaming a delay in ARM smartbooks on the continuing unsuitability of Flash for the subnotebook market" .. The article mentions "flash optimization" as being the issue, which gets me wondering: isn't Adobe on board with this? I mean, it would seem in their best-interest, especially with this latest spat with Apple, that they work with ARM to create super sleek plugins.. ARM is by far the world's leader in the cellphone market, which is arguably where a lot of the web is "moving" towards. If they cooperate with ARM to optimize plugin code (and even flash code itself) for their processors, wouldn't that help make flash's future a whole lot brighter?

The other thing where that statement bothers me is that I've been browsing the web on my N900 for 5 months now -- no "special mobile" sites either, the "full" web, flash content and all (I merely use a flashblock plugin that when enabled makes me click on a flash block to "play" it -- coupled with ABP, it really cuts down on bandwidth usage when I'm surfing through a cellular connection) and I haven't had any issues yet. I highly doubt Nokia devoted that many resources to this, or that Adobe or ARM bent over backwards to enable such a smooth browsing experience, so if my 600MHz A7 Cortex-powered N900 can do this, what's holding back the rest of ARM-powered devices? (especially since the snapdragon came out)

leading brands? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126208)

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.

10 out of 10 luxury brands.

No, at least (5, Insightful)

pkphilip (6861) | more than 4 years ago | (#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 (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126572)

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

Port badgers and ritalin (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127012)

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.

Apple showed (2, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126216)

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:Apple showed (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126248)

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

Re:Apple showed (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126406)

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:Apple showed (2, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126532)

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:Apple showed (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126834)

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:Apple showed (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126860)

"pay more for less"

Less here is actually rather subjective. Sure it doesn't function with the same purpose and may have less in the hardware spec, but the overall experience of being quick, reliable, and very good at the tasks it does shouldn't be understated.

Re:Apple showed (1)

StayFrosty (1521445) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127044)

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 paid or free apps. They can choose open or closed source applications.

The operating system itself is open-source. Anyone who is interested can download the source, modify it, make it better, do whatever they want and (usually) flash it to their device. The only thing that is not open is the device itself. Some manufacturers insist on locking the device down--but luckily the user is free to choose one that is not locked down as well.

I like the 'crippled' web - and conflated topics (4, Insightful)

david.emery (127135) | more than 4 years ago | (#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)?

Re:Apple showed (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126884)

Those people are very likely not really understanding what they are buying anyway.

Re:Apple showed (1)

drc003 (738548) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127028)

Yes they have shown what we already knew; There are many people out there who are willing throw money away on whatever is "in" and "cool" while being clueless to many superior options. Take a look at CD sales and you will see that people have shown they will make dog crap top sellers as well. This is the society we live in now.

So basically a bunch of brands... (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126238)

...that wealthy shoppers like? BFD (yes... yes... you can say the Apple crowd may dig some of these brands, again, BFD)

Re:So basically a bunch of brands... (1)

methano (519830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126908)

I really don't understand this post at all. Is it me?

Re:So basically a bunch of brands... (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127040)

Well, it is undertandable, but it's like... kinda... worthless. So you're better off not understanding it.

Not for everything. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126260)

For video, almost definitely.

Re:Not for everything. (1)

pkphilip (6861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126386)

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 transfer their users to HTML5 compatible browsers?

If anything, it would discourage employees from using up the bandwidth looking at some random video on the web - all the more reason not to encourage the move to HTML5 browsers.

Re:Not for everything. (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126596)

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 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127062)

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.

Why should anyone care about scribd? (2, Funny)

eison (56778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126338)

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:Why should anyone care about scribd? (3, Interesting)

amentajo (1199437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126536)

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.

Re:Why should anyone care about scribd? (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126980)

I haven't actually heard about that site until today, and i honestly doubt I will ever heard from it again.

i've seen javascript slow down my machines (5, Interesting)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:i've seen javascript slow down my machines (2, Insightful)

pkphilip (6861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126626)

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:i've seen javascript slow down my machines (2, Insightful)

amentajo (1199437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126660)

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.

The web must cater to Apple (0, Flamebait)

zaphod777 (1755922) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126364)

I still don't understand how Apple can not include flash but then insist the rest of the web change to cater itself to their non flash products. Pretty arrogant if you ask me but again that is nothing new.

Re:The web must cater to Apple (2, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126506)

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...

Hardware (1)

bezpredel6 (1796620) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126382)

How come Flash was fine on hardware 7 years ago, but is not suited for modern low power hardware?

Re:Hardware (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126430)

not a scientific test, but i swear flash performs better on the P4 compared to modern intel CPU's

Re:Hardware (4, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126502)

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:Hardware (1)

markhb (11721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126904)

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?

Looking at it the other way (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#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".

Re:Looking at it the other way (4, Insightful)

Have Blue (616) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126806)

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.

Re:Looking at it the other way (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127030)

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

I've got 2 issues with Flash (4, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

I've got 2 issues with your post (5, Funny)

kjart (941720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126588)

1. You can't count.

OTOH, it does echo what everyone else is saying on this site, so it's probably pretty insightful.

Re:I've got 2 issues with Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126618)

I agree with all of the above, especially the part about the obnoxious ads.

Also there's point #4 - flash vulnerabilities give hacker types an other way into your system - this is true of any embedded program that launches out of a webpage eh?

Flash was a nice idea, but it shouldn't have become what it is now as far as those so called big internet sites that use it, use it for.

Java applets and flash.. two of my major beefs with the internet.

Re:I've got 2 issues with Flash (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126848)

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:I've got 2 issues with Flash (1)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126892)

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

Fortunately, that won't happen with HTML5.</snark>

Re:I've got 2 issues with Flash (5, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126894)

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. (5, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126466)

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.

Oh Man..Here Come The Apple Fanboys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126798)

You are going to get killed by the Apple Hipster Douchebags with mod points.

Steve Jobs sees Flash as a threat to his toolbooth for his platform lockin and his worshipers are out in full cult like force with their mod points for anyone who dares bring Reality into these attempts at trashing Adobe and Flash.

Re:Answer: No. Unless you only mean video. (1)

Gorkamecha (948294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126836)

Games or creating specific styles of user activity. I've seen some amazingly beautiful websites that require flash to execute some of their tricks.

I'm aware this is /. so functionality will trump form, but flash does some things that are pretty much impossible to pull off with just JS.

Plus, given that flash is more or less browser independent, it's easier to create a ubiquitous user experience. That was always the big selling point in my mind for flash....it took me out of the browser wars.

Re:Answer: No. Unless you only mean video. (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126902)

...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:Answer: No. Unless you only mean video. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126920)

"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.

Re:Answer: No. Unless you only mean video. (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126986)

don't forget webcams and microphones

javascript vs flash (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126470)

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 in Flash because of lack of processing power, it by immediate consequence can't do in HTML5.

Personally I dread HTML5 takeover (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126478)

It will basically mean that my chances of blocking out commercials from the sites I like drop to ... well ... to zero, really.

And all because Apple wants MORE lockin, and may actually get it.

This is like paying money to stay in prison.

Re:Personally I dread HTML5 takeover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126718)

This is silly. If you block ad images now, you'll block ad videos next.

Re:Personally I dread HTML5 takeover (2, Informative)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126964)

canvas { display: none }

I could care less... (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126490)

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 annoying advertising starts showing up in my web browser :-P

I do like some Flash games, so I don't mind having Flash support, though... just like I don't mind installing a JVM for Java games, etc. So locking those kinds of apps out are pretty much an *sshole move. But that's pretty much Apple for you and a large part why I don't care for any of their straightjacket platforms. The NeXTish interface was nice, though... I still like WindowMaker and try to arrange my current WM similarly.

Played with HTML5 on http://youtube.com/testtubethe [youtube.com] other day, and it was decent but had no full screen mode. But Flash doesn't have a decent performing fullscreen mode on Linux anyway, so I still tend to just run "vlc /tmp/Flash*" after visiting a flash site with good quality content I'm actually interested in watching.

Re:I could care less... (5, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126684)

You couldn't care less.

Re:I could care less... (2, Informative)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127022)

hey, I cared enough to bother making a post :P

You forgot to tell: top 10 leading Luxury brand... (1)

MrJones (4691) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126624)

Its not the "top 10 leading brands", its "the top 10 Luxury leading brands". Prada, Channel, ...
Not to much tech in this news :(

Re:You forgot to tell: top 10 leading Luxury brand (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126828)

Not a problem, Apple will just supplant them...

HTML5 (2, Insightful)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126642)

... is great. JS engines keep getting better and you're not relying on ONE company to make your proprietary closed unreleased technology useful.

Re:HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126724)

Instead, you rely on tens' of other companies. And they will all render HTML 5 different. So I don't see why this is a step forward.

One of the primary reasons to use flash, is its ability to render content the same way, on ALL platforms.

Re:HTML5 (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127026)

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 is far more open then Apple.

Apple wants strict control of everything. Thats why La La is gone. Thats why the second Google makes a phone, Apple hates google, who the used to love when the iPhone came out.

Apple is a selfish entity.

Not Really But (1)

UseCase (939095) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126720)

Of course HTML5 is not ready to take over for the myriad of niches that flash fills on the web "right now". The big push is to get developer mindset looking and leaning in the HTML5 direction. Tools need to be written, demos need to inspire, and books need to be written. None of will happen really until a real buzz is generated. The buzz is building, but associated more to Flash controversy than HTML 5 technical merit. We need some good solid analogous material to compare and contrast these technologies.

Adobe's is breaking their own License agreement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126732)

Basically, this says it all. Even Chrome may be breaking this "agreement".

(i) Adobe Runtime Restrictions.

(i) Prohibited Devices. Distributor shall not distribute, download or embed any Adobe Runtime on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, Distributor shall not distribute any Adobe Runtime for use on any (a) mobile device, set top box (STB), handheld, phone, web pad, tablet or Tablet PC (other than Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and its successors), game console, TV, DVD player, media center (other than Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboard or other digital signage, internet appliance or other internet-connected device, PDA, medical device, ATM, telematic device, gaming machine, home automation system, kiosk, remote control device, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television system or (c) other closed system device. For information on licensing Adobe Runtimes for use or distribution on devices see http://www.adobe.com/licensing.

It may not be, but I sure am ready! (1, Informative)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126766)

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.

Look back a few years (1)

slenver (644088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126804)

I don't see the experience of top 10 luxury brands as particularly relevant in the long term. Large companies spend an awful lot of time and money on websites and are always going to be a little behind the curve, often by several years. Smaller more agile companies are where to look in terms of what people are doing currently. Also, cast your minds back to only a few years ago. How many leading websites, banks in particular, worked flawlessly on 'other' browsers such as Firefox. Virtually none for a long time. This isn't because Firefox and other modern browsers were either inherently bad or, as it transpired, doomed to failure. It was merely because websites were built poorly to the 'standards' that their staff believed were relevant at the time. These were make-believe Microsoft 'standards' at that time and Flash in the present could be exactly analogous. Both after all are/were non-standard paths that led off from agreed open standards of the time. Those standards eventually won over MS' attempt to own a proprietary alternative and maybe Flash will follow the same path. Sure, it's potentially bad for Flash developers - or rather, Flash developers who aren't prepared to budge and adapt - but if HTML 5 comes to maturity and delivers a compelling alternative (and there is an 'if'), then maybe we'll be looking back at Flash in a few years' time and amusing ourselves over the funny little proprietary plugin that was needed just to make fully interactive sites. Just as we look back now at the IE-inspired abortions that graced many a monitor a few years ago and failed to work properly in anything other than 'IE 5 or above'.

internet explorer (1)

greggman (102198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126826)

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.

Filling a gap that's no longer there (1)

lewster32 (1719106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126846)

I've long been a Flash advocate, but it's clear even to me that Flash has simply been filling a gap that was missing in the world of HTML/CSS/JS. Apple have delivered the final blow and made it so there's not really much choice but to go down the HTML5 route. As a developer who has to turn websites around quickly, this is a major pain in the arse; doing the same thing in HTML as in Flash may be generally possible but it takes a hell of a lot longer, has to run the gauntlet of browser differences and finally be degradable for those on IE.

I'm sad to see Flash go (and at least in its current guise - as a browser plug-in - it will disappear), but I can understand the logic, even if I don't particularly like it.

Simple Answer: No (1)

Necroman (61604) | more than 4 years ago | (#32126912)

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 deployed 1 decent size GWT based application on the web that did some really naughty stuff in the browser (hurray for 600MB of memory usage in IE) and it was so slow that we had to add a processing window to let the user name that this may take a while. (trust me, it wasn't an engineering decision to do what we did). It spiked the CPU and used a ton of memory.

If HTML5 and Javascript based applications become more popular on the web, you can bet that there will be crappily coded sites out there that will give HTML/JS just as bad of a rep as Flash gets.

Oh no, it won't work on an iPad! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32126938)

Cue massive Apple and HTML5 circle jerks.

So bloody what if they don't?
Get over it, they're not your websites and it's not your hardware.
Apple won't budge because they're perusing a restrictive agenda. Which if you buy there stuff then you should put up or shut up with.
And come on a flash site? Are they ever that impressive? They mostly feel like bloat and loading screens.
It's not the end of the world if you feel you have to make a website in HTML and ditch 2001.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?