5 ms·
Yes, that's the point. The author is saying that if you have to go through and convert your existing Flash content to work on a mobile device, why not go the fu
by cmelbye 16y ago
Yes, that's the point. The author is saying that if you have to go through and convert your existing Flash content to work on a mobile device, why not go the full distance and convert it to HTML5?
- contextfree 16y agoBut that's begging the question - there's still no reason to do that unless you already think Flash is a dead end, the future is HTML uber alles, etc. Which this guy apparently didn't, since at beginning of his article he writes, "I’m the last person on earth who wanted to believe Steve Jobs when he told Walt Mossberg at D8 that “Flash has had its day.” I took it as nothing more than showmanship ... " until he tried 10.1 on Android.
- cmelbye 16y agoNo, this guy thought that 10.1 on Android would mean that desktop content could be seamlessly consumed on a mobile device, thus invalidating most of Steve's complaints. I don't think that he believed that Flash was "better" than HTML5.
- jonknee 16y ago"So it will still work on IE" is going to be a pretty common response for that question for the foreseeable future. Right now when you go the HTML 5 right you still need to fall back to Flash.