3 ms·
His strongest argument to keep Flash relevant is "the coming HTML video implementations cannot agree on a common format across browsers". Boy, they are in wors
by romland 17y ago
His strongest argument to keep Flash relevant is "the coming HTML video implementations cannot agree on a common format across browsers".
Boy, they are in worse shape than I first thought. They will open source the parts they own of this beast, the problem is it will be too late to make a difference.
Sure, he brings up the fact that they can update the majority of Web clients in less than a year. But what was it they said about the currently fastest growing web-browser out there? 95% of browsers updated within the span of a few weeks? (I don't recall the sources, sadly)
And this one is almost too good to not take out of context: "We strongly believe the Web should remain an open environment with consistent access to content and applications". Oh well.
- bad_user 17y agoThe web didn't had at first a common format for images ... but now all modern browsers have support for GIF, JPEG, and PNG. And it was probably a smart move on their part to avoid political issues. Apple will add Theora support if the demand increases. Mozilla will add H.264 support when the IP-issues are cleared.
- mbreese 17y agoWell, there are still issues with transparent PNGs and gamma settings for GIFs. But your main point is true... eventually the tech will work itself out.
- wizard_2 17y agoIs there a moment to "clear" the H.264 issues? I have the understanding that the people who own the copyright are making plenty of money off of it and it quite a popular format. I don't see why they would give that up.
- smcq 17y agoCopyright is not patent. Patents expire inside our lifetimes. H.264 will be a viable product for startups to use in 2017. (As an aside, don't cast this as a FF vs. the world, patent fees kill startups as well as open source companies.)
- barrybe 17y agoI don't think he's laying out the whole flash vs HTML5 argument in that post. He says: If HTML could reliably do everything Flash does that would certainly save us a lot of effort, but that does not appear to be coming to pass. which is probably referring to how HTML5 does not have: efficient vector-based animation, support for audio mixing, strong tool support and ecosystem for creating interactive content, a pathway to run C code (Alchemy), etc.
- inimino 17y agoefficient vector-based animation SVG in HTML (embedded directly in the DOM, not an <img>) is all but certain to happen; the SVG and HTML working groups just have to agree on the details. Of course SVG in an <img> island is possible already, which is what already more integrated with the browser than Flash. support for audio mixing HTML5 has <audio>, and the rest will come in time, with enhancements to what's there now. tool support Actually, there are already more Web developers than Flash developers, so I'm not sure this argument holds much weight... but you can be sure there are people working on this very issue for the Web platform. If these and similar issues all that Flash has going for it against the Open Web, then Flash is on the way out. In a decade, I expect Flash will be as relevant to the Web as Java applets are today.