4 ms·

Useless FUD. Yes, let's compare a 15-year-old mature platform to one in its infancy, and dismiss the latter on grounds of the performance of its more esoteric f

Useless FUD. Yes, let's compare a 15-year-old mature platform to one in its infancy, and dismiss the latter on grounds of the performance of its more esoteric features. We get it, Flash developers fear change; cry me a river. Considering the relative rates of progress of Adobe, the only company that can advance the Flash platform, and every other tech company in existence currently working on HTML5, I know where the safer bet five years from now is, barring Adobe doing something smart and opening up the Flash runtime. So HTML5 is still rough around the edges, big surprise there. The fact is, for video playback, it does just fine today, even on limited mobile devices, and if sites were to only replace Flash with HTML5 for video and audio playback, we're talking about 90% of Flash's popular use right there. As HTML5 matures, including content creation tools and the performance of various browser runtime implementations, it'll eat into Flash's share for other tasks as well. Apple is creating a market demand for HTML5 development tools and expertise, which is the first necessary step in order to bring the platform to maturity. After that happens, Flash developers will jump on board and forget this thing ever happened. Until then, just keep coding your crappy Flash ads and leave the rest of us who actually want some progress for the open web alone.

ThomPete 16y ago
Yes lets compare them. Why shouldn't we? The mature platform and an immature platform. HTML5 holds promise but it's simply not capable of delivering anything close to what the flash platform can. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. Let it naturally outperform flash once it's better, nothing hinders that. So if you believe HTML5 will be better then let it prove itself. So far it's no where near.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  My point is that HTML5 does do SOME things better, some things that Flash is quite commonly used for, like video playback without pegging my CPU quite as much. To say that all of HTML5 is useless because it doesn't replace Flash for games or because Canvas and SVG browser support aren't quite up to snuff, is idiotic. That support will come, and HTML5 will become a practical replacement for those functions as well at some point. For now, people will keep using Flash for that, and figuring out something else for iDevices. Adobe Flash CS5 can already export to Canvas, so the content creation support is obviously on its way. Flash isn't the end-all web platform either, and webGL can do many things in 3D that Flash developers could only dream of. Flash has its place, but that place is at the periphery, not the core of the web; Flash-only sites deserve to die in a fire. To think that HTML5 will stand still now that there's a market pressure to support it is incredibly short-sighted.
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    You should really learn to put forward your claims without having to resort to strawmen. Who said HTML5 was useless? No one did. That you get better performance with video using HTML5 does little to remedy the fact that playback of video is really all you can do. You try and seamlessly integrate video, with logic, dynamic text, vectors in HTML5 and you will be pretty disappointed. The Flash isn't the be all end all. But what it does it does so many times better than HTML5 for quite some time.
    - WiseWeasel 16y ago
      I agree that Flash is better for many things, that the tools that support the format support greater capabilities, especially for things like access to webcam and mic hardware, and obviously 2D and extremely basic 3D interactive games and presentations, and Flash will likely be better for some or all of these things for a while longer. But I also think Flash is widely abused, with ads and other site elements doing things like playing videos or animations and consuming resources (precious on mobile devices) without user intervention, and worst of all designing entire site interfaces in Flash with no HTML fall-back. I support what Apple is doing because it really forces site operators to reevaluate how deeply they rely on Flash for their web presence, and because it drives the development of content creation tools that support HTML5 content, as well as progress in browser support. I acknowledge that it's painful to undertake a transition like this, especially as you've got clients asking why they have to pay this much more to get their content on iDevices now. But in the end, we get a more open web, which means more user control over the experience, which is a good thing for users like you and me.
      - ThomPete 16y ago
        Given the CPU usage of the HTML5 examples shown in the video it seems like Flash is not alone with that problem. With regards to designing entire sites in flash. Go to thefwa.com check out some of the sites on that portal. Then tell me why you would want an HTML fallback for that? That is kind of like saying that all video should have transcription of what is being said. Sometimes there is no substitute. With regards to the open web argument. Since we are in agreement that Flash isn't the be all end all of the web, then what is the problem? If HTML5 is better then it will eventually outcompete FLASH. Until it is, support both. That is what I don't understand with Apples claims. HTML5 is right now rather resource intensive as shown in the video. It actually going to be worse for the battery life of an iPad than flash is. It's a hollow argument.

ThomPete 16y ago

Yes lets compare them. Why shouldn't we? The mature platform and an immature platform. HTML5 holds promise but it's simply not capable of delivering anything close to what the flash platform can. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. Let it naturally outperform flash once it's better, nothing hinders that. So if you believe HTML5 will be better then let it prove itself. So far it's no where near.

WiseWeasel 16y ago
My point is that HTML5 does do SOME things better, some things that Flash is quite commonly used for, like video playback without pegging my CPU quite as much. To say that all of HTML5 is useless because it doesn't replace Flash for games or because Canvas and SVG browser support aren't quite up to snuff, is idiotic. That support will come, and HTML5 will become a practical replacement for those functions as well at some point. For now, people will keep using Flash for that, and figuring out something else for iDevices. Adobe Flash CS5 can already export to Canvas, so the content creation support is obviously on its way. Flash isn't the end-all web platform either, and webGL can do many things in 3D that Flash developers could only dream of. Flash has its place, but that place is at the periphery, not the core of the web; Flash-only sites deserve to die in a fire. To think that HTML5 will stand still now that there's a market pressure to support it is incredibly short-sighted.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  You should really learn to put forward your claims without having to resort to strawmen. Who said HTML5 was useless? No one did. That you get better performance with video using HTML5 does little to remedy the fact that playback of video is really all you can do. You try and seamlessly integrate video, with logic, dynamic text, vectors in HTML5 and you will be pretty disappointed. The Flash isn't the be all end all. But what it does it does so many times better than HTML5 for quite some time.
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    I agree that Flash is better for many things, that the tools that support the format support greater capabilities, especially for things like access to webcam and mic hardware, and obviously 2D and extremely basic 3D interactive games and presentations, and Flash will likely be better for some or all of these things for a while longer. But I also think Flash is widely abused, with ads and other site elements doing things like playing videos or animations and consuming resources (precious on mobile devices) without user intervention, and worst of all designing entire site interfaces in Flash with no HTML fall-back. I support what Apple is doing because it really forces site operators to reevaluate how deeply they rely on Flash for their web presence, and because it drives the development of content creation tools that support HTML5 content, as well as progress in browser support. I acknowledge that it's painful to undertake a transition like this, especially as you've got clients asking why they have to pay this much more to get their content on iDevices now. But in the end, we get a more open web, which means more user control over the experience, which is a good thing for users like you and me.
    - ThomPete 16y ago
      Given the CPU usage of the HTML5 examples shown in the video it seems like Flash is not alone with that problem. With regards to designing entire sites in flash. Go to thefwa.com check out some of the sites on that portal. Then tell me why you would want an HTML fallback for that? That is kind of like saying that all video should have transcription of what is being said. Sometimes there is no substitute. With regards to the open web argument. Since we are in agreement that Flash isn't the be all end all of the web, then what is the problem? If HTML5 is better then it will eventually outcompete FLASH. Until it is, support both. That is what I don't understand with Apples claims. HTML5 is right now rather resource intensive as shown in the video. It actually going to be worse for the battery life of an iPad than flash is. It's a hollow argument.