4 ms·

With mobile requests on their way to outstripping desktop browser requests in the next two years on a lot of sites, it's the mobile site that's going to drive d

With mobile requests on their way to outstripping desktop browser requests in the next two years on a lot of sites, it's the mobile site that's going to drive decisions about what you put on your web site and how you choose to let users interact with it. And Flash is essentially dead in the water from that perspective. I'm perfectly willing to accept that we'll continue to use Flash to gussy-up the experience at the desktop and allow for more complex interactions with media. But frankly, most sites don't need (and users don't really want) that complex a set of interactions. How many of us have gone to a Flash restaurant site and sat there cursing because it was hard to find what we really needed - the menu, hours, address or phone? Worse, tried to hit that from a mobile phone? That's why flash is going to get increasingly marginalized, not because HTML5 is allowing similarly complex effects. Flash largely goes in the category of those old DVD ROM authoring softwares: harder to implement, harder to test, harder to use.

cageface 15y ago
Most sites would get a lot more mileage out of a serious study of basic information design principles than tacking on the latest whiz bang effects, be they flash or HTML 5. Demos are fun but on the web I'm after information, not some kind of half-assed video game.
est 15y ago
> But frankly, most sites don't need (and users don't really want) that complex a set of interactions. Wait until full screen <canvas> ads hog your mobile CPU and you can't even fire up a task manager to end the browser process.
tomlin 15y ago
I think the Flash-based restaurant example has had it's time. Let's try and move past the fallacy that most Flash-based sites are restaurant sites. They're not. YouTube, Grooveshark, blog.tv, etc. are all possible because of Flash. The dream is that we'll be able to harness webcam, microphone, great audio API, and so on, without some proprietary plugin. The reality is, we won't be able to. As soon as standards are all caught up, Flash will have included 5+ years worth of advancements that will be absolutely necessary for some types of interaction with the user. Flash may be proprietary, buggy, closed, etc, but life without YouTube and the like would really feel like the stone age more than an improvement.
- keeperofdakeys 15y ago
  Html5 youtube is starting to work quite well. Grooveshark is entirely html5 except for the audio, that is only because the html5 audio components are a little lacking at the moment (but they are making leaps and bounds, and within a year there should be good support in the firefox and chrome). Standards have pretty much caught up, we just need to wait for people to upgrade to browsers that support these standards. > The reality is, we won't be able to. As soon as standards are all caught up, Flash will have included 5+ years worth of advancements that will be absolutely necessary for some types of interaction with the user. The next big feature for the next flash player is full 3d support. WebGL, the html5 mirror of this already has support in firefox and chrome (although, it can't be used on XP or linux with intel due to bad driver support). In this case, the open standards are ahead of Flash.
  - tomlin 15y ago
    > Standards have pretty much caught up, we just need to wait for people to upgrade to browsers that support these standards. If we live today and today only, Moore's law wouldn't apply and we could all say for certain that HTML5 and it's successors will be the lead indefinitely. I don't see that happening. If Flash didn't exist today, given the rate that standards are drafted and implemented, would we even be here today talking about audio API or reliable video streaming? Who knows. Flash is the necessary evil, you see. Standards are driven by demand. But how can demand exist for something that a user cannot experience? Flash. It is the petri dish of web innovation. Perhaps not the best petri dish but a petri dish nonetheless.
  - whatever_dude 15y ago
    > In this case, the open standards are ahead of Flash. They're only ahead if you consider one idea with poor implementation and compatibility in around 3% of the browsers to be "ahead". And by that same logic, Unity3D is already way ahead of both of them, and it doesn't mean anything either. Flash already has OpenGL/DX enabled on Flash 11 (currently in an open beta), which should be released later this year. Given the quick turnaround we have for Flash Player penetration (6 months for 80% penetration; 12 months for 95% penetration) I can bet Flash's 3d will be at 90% penetration on all desktop platforms and browsers before even WebGL reaches 20% market penetration. There's no helpful headstart here. Like it or not, a Flash Player upgrade gets installed much faster than a browser upgrade. Look at the number of people who are still using old IE versions. There are no "leaps and bounds" in the HTML world. Even if standards came out as quickly as a single company putting out their own platform, actual implementation and adoption takes a much, much longer time. This is the real world, and that some people ignore it is baffling. There are many reasons NOT to use Flash, but trying to sell HTML5 as a more capable standard is missing the point entirely. And considering Apple's stance on not allowing WebGL on iOS either, plus Microsoft refusal to implement it, can't see any real advantage in using WebGL coming in the future. Quite the opposite.

cageface 15y ago

Most sites would get a lot more mileage out of a serious study of basic information design principles than tacking on the latest whiz bang effects, be they flash or HTML 5. Demos are fun but on the web I'm after information, not some kind of half-assed video game.

est 15y ago

> But frankly, most sites don't need (and users don't really want) that complex a set of interactions. Wait until full screen <canvas> ads hog your mobile CPU and you can't even fire up a task manager to end the browser process.

tomlin 15y ago

I think the Flash-based restaurant example has had it's time. Let's try and move past the fallacy that most Flash-based sites are restaurant sites. They're not. YouTube, Grooveshark, blog.tv, etc. are all possible because of Flash. The dream is that we'll be able to harness webcam, microphone, great audio API, and so on, without some proprietary plugin. The reality is, we won't be able to. As soon as standards are all caught up, Flash will have included 5+ years worth of advancements that will be absolutely necessary for some types of interaction with the user. Flash may be proprietary, buggy, closed, etc, but life without YouTube and the like would really feel like the stone age more than an improvement.

keeperofdakeys 15y ago
Html5 youtube is starting to work quite well. Grooveshark is entirely html5 except for the audio, that is only because the html5 audio components are a little lacking at the moment (but they are making leaps and bounds, and within a year there should be good support in the firefox and chrome). Standards have pretty much caught up, we just need to wait for people to upgrade to browsers that support these standards. > The reality is, we won't be able to. As soon as standards are all caught up, Flash will have included 5+ years worth of advancements that will be absolutely necessary for some types of interaction with the user. The next big feature for the next flash player is full 3d support. WebGL, the html5 mirror of this already has support in firefox and chrome (although, it can't be used on XP or linux with intel due to bad driver support). In this case, the open standards are ahead of Flash.
- tomlin 15y ago
  > Standards have pretty much caught up, we just need to wait for people to upgrade to browsers that support these standards. If we live today and today only, Moore's law wouldn't apply and we could all say for certain that HTML5 and it's successors will be the lead indefinitely. I don't see that happening. If Flash didn't exist today, given the rate that standards are drafted and implemented, would we even be here today talking about audio API or reliable video streaming? Who knows. Flash is the necessary evil, you see. Standards are driven by demand. But how can demand exist for something that a user cannot experience? Flash. It is the petri dish of web innovation. Perhaps not the best petri dish but a petri dish nonetheless.
- whatever_dude 15y ago
  > In this case, the open standards are ahead of Flash. They're only ahead if you consider one idea with poor implementation and compatibility in around 3% of the browsers to be "ahead". And by that same logic, Unity3D is already way ahead of both of them, and it doesn't mean anything either. Flash already has OpenGL/DX enabled on Flash 11 (currently in an open beta), which should be released later this year. Given the quick turnaround we have for Flash Player penetration (6 months for 80% penetration; 12 months for 95% penetration) I can bet Flash's 3d will be at 90% penetration on all desktop platforms and browsers before even WebGL reaches 20% market penetration. There's no helpful headstart here. Like it or not, a Flash Player upgrade gets installed much faster than a browser upgrade. Look at the number of people who are still using old IE versions. There are no "leaps and bounds" in the HTML world. Even if standards came out as quickly as a single company putting out their own platform, actual implementation and adoption takes a much, much longer time. This is the real world, and that some people ignore it is baffling. There are many reasons NOT to use Flash, but trying to sell HTML5 as a more capable standard is missing the point entirely. And considering Apple's stance on not allowing WebGL on iOS either, plus Microsoft refusal to implement it, can't see any real advantage in using WebGL coming in the future. Quite the opposite.