4 ms·

there are a large number of sites that also demo html5 sucking just as bad. video=FUDcrap. 230+ points for this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1646430 ht

by zenocon 16y ago

there are a large number of sites that also demo html5 sucking just as bad. video=FUDcrap. 230+ points for this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1646430 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1646430 really? ...when it sent smoke rings out my dual core with 4GB of RAM? i most certainly don't work for adobe, but crap like this is what made me stop reading slashdot. btw: i like arcade fire a lot.

jmreid 16y ago
And how long as Flash been in development and had time to mature? You can't compare something that is at version 10 with something brand new.
marknutter 16y ago
Well all things being equal, wouldn't it be better for the open-source solution to win out in the end?
- dantheman 16y ago
  html 5 is not a replacement for flash, not even close.
  - ugh 16y ago
    HTML5 doesn’t need to have all capabilities of Flash. The Flash plugin might very well be relegated to Java plugin status (i.e. hardly ever used) while still being a lot more capable than HTML5. All HTML5 has to capture are the most common use cases Flash is currently used for. Video? Sure deal. Audio? Looks like it will work. Animations? No problem. Infographics with light interactivity (like the stuff you find on nytimes.com)? Will work. Games? Hm, not so great. Audio and video capture? Let’s not talk about that. Oh, and restaurant websites? Shouldn’t have used Flash in the first place. What’s important is what’s widely used, not what something is theoretically capable of. You are right that HTML5 is far from being able to match all the features of Flash. It doesn’t have to.
    - rbranson 16y ago
      ... and the platform won't survive long-term on free games and audio/video capture alone.
      - ergo98 16y ago
        Video has been a relatively recent use for Flash, where it pushed out QuickTime (which Steve stills stews over), MediaPlayer, Real Media Player, and others. It's always been an odd purpose for it, given that it's an ultra thin wrapper around a standard stream, so extracting that stream seems to be an obvious choice. Many "flash videos" are simply a h264 video consumed by an SWF, so decoupling that seems like a big advantage.
  - megablast 16y ago
    A cup of noddles is no replacement for a four course dinner. If HTML5 can do most of the important stuff that flash does, then fine. It already comes with a better supported programming language (javascript), with 1000s of libraries to supports it. It doesn't need to do everything. And when Adobe releases support for exporting to HTML5 from flash, as they have been rumored to be doing, it will be looking like the end.

by zenocon 16y ago

jmreid 16y ago

And how long as Flash been in development and had time to mature? You can't compare something that is at version 10 with something brand new.

marknutter 16y ago

Well all things being equal, wouldn't it be better for the open-source solution to win out in the end?

dantheman 16y ago
html 5 is not a replacement for flash, not even close.
- ugh 16y ago
  HTML5 doesn’t need to have all capabilities of Flash. The Flash plugin might very well be relegated to Java plugin status (i.e. hardly ever used) while still being a lot more capable than HTML5. All HTML5 has to capture are the most common use cases Flash is currently used for. Video? Sure deal. Audio? Looks like it will work. Animations? No problem. Infographics with light interactivity (like the stuff you find on nytimes.com)? Will work. Games? Hm, not so great. Audio and video capture? Let’s not talk about that. Oh, and restaurant websites? Shouldn’t have used Flash in the first place. What’s important is what’s widely used, not what something is theoretically capable of. You are right that HTML5 is far from being able to match all the features of Flash. It doesn’t have to.
  - rbranson 16y ago
    ... and the platform won't survive long-term on free games and audio/video capture alone.
    - ergo98 16y ago
      Video has been a relatively recent use for Flash, where it pushed out QuickTime (which Steve stills stews over), MediaPlayer, Real Media Player, and others. It's always been an odd purpose for it, given that it's an ultra thin wrapper around a standard stream, so extracting that stream seems to be an obvious choice. Many "flash videos" are simply a h264 video consumed by an SWF, so decoupling that seems like a big advantage.
- megablast 16y ago
  A cup of noddles is no replacement for a four course dinner. If HTML5 can do most of the important stuff that flash does, then fine. It already comes with a better supported programming language (javascript), with 1000s of libraries to supports it. It doesn't need to do everything. And when Adobe releases support for exporting to HTML5 from flash, as they have been rumored to be doing, it will be looking like the end.