3 ms·
A lot of grandiose claims in hopes of the death of Flash around here. As though Flash has never done anything good for anyone. I agree that it's nice that the
by enobrev 16y ago
A lot of grandiose claims in hopes of the death of Flash around here. As though Flash has never done anything good for anyone.
I agree that it's nice that the browsers are now supporting new features that allow so much well needed functionality across the board - but they're really just now catching up to what Flash has offered us for years.
Forget all-flash websites. Seriously, forget them. I like the OP's site about as much as I liked flash intros from 2001 before they started adding "Skip This" buttons. I'm referring to media players, socket clients, file uploading tools worth using, vector animation, a decent programming experience that worked across the board (AS3 is actually a fun language if you give it a real shot).
Where would the web be without Youtube? Where would Youtube be without Flash? How about last.fm? or Pandora? Do you remember what the web was like before flash? Real Player, anyone? Java applets? I'll take a flash game over a Java applet any day. Regardless if you use these media-centric sites personally, they changed the internet as we know it - making it accessible to normal human beings. To disregard Flash's place in that history doesn't make any sense.
And it's far from over. The browsers STILL haven't gotten media playback right across the board. Everything's a big fat beta right now and IE is dragging us behind as usual. It would be nice if everyone could at least agree on a codec or two, but no. Meanwhile, flash-based media players still work just about everywhere.
I'm happy that the browsers are catching up with Flash - truly. I loved developing in Actionscript, and I'll love replacing it. But these claims that Flash is somehow the bane of the internet is to deny some of the very foundations of how successful the internet has become.
- steveklabnik 16y ago> Where would Youtube be without Flash? http://www.youtube.com/html5 http://www.youtube.com/html5 > To disregard Flash's place in that history doesn't make any sense. Nobody is saying that Flash wasn't worthwhile, ever. It's just nice that something that used to be a large part of the web can be taken out of the hands of a company, and returned to us all. > But these claims that Flash is somehow the bane of the internet is to deny some of the very foundations of how successful the internet has become. Ehhhh I'd disagree. I certainly agree that until very recently (and not quite yet for everyone), Flash is no longer needed, and that that's a good thing. Flash is a threat to the Internet: it's in the hands of Adobe. The web should be open, and for everyone. But that's precisely _because_ the internet has become so successful. It's far too important to be left under corporate control.
- gloob 16y ago> http://www.youtube.com/html5 http://www.youtube.com/html5 So what you're saying is that without Flash, YouTube wouldn't have existed until 2009 or 2010?
- steveklabnik 16y agoYes, and that that has no bearing on Flash's importance today. Lots of things that seemed awesome in 2004 aren't that great in 2011.