3 ms·

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.

by 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.
  - keeperofdakeys 15y ago
    With Apples position on flash (especially on iOS), do you think they are going to leave browser 3d stuff totally alone? It does make sense though, they want people to put that stuff in an app, and not a webapp.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - whatever_dude 15y ago
      Goes to prove that Apple's problem is not Flash, but the web. They don't want the web to have too many features and anyone who thinks they truly support HTML5 is mistaken.
tomkarlo 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." I'll stop using that example as soon as I stop having that problem once a week. It's even worse in fashion, where designers for tiny brands continually get suckered into making flash-only sites that are essentially useless beyond being brochureware. Are there sites that use Flash to great benefit? I have no doubt, although it seems to me the examples you're using are just using it as a way to deliver media. But for 99% of web sites, Flash is a bad idea and provides little benefit. I use Flashblock on my browsers, and the only time I seem to need to unblock anything is to watch a video. That's a bad sign for folks looking for a long-term use of Flash outside of players and video games.
- tomlin 15y ago
  My point with Flash reaches a few thoughts into the future, while most are perfectly happy to have their ignorance contemporary. Let's just say that tomorrow Flash DIES. It's gone. No more Flash. Do you think those same shitty restaurant sites are suddenly going to become standards-loving, keyboard-jockeying HTML 5 + JS sites? Again. The issue isn't Flash. It's the industry. The same restaurants are going to call up the same vendors and ask them to provide them with, what they consider, the new hotness. We place the blame on the customer, or the user, or in this case, the technology. Perhaps all along it's just us. And our uncanny ability to misinform the client and leave them without information on accessibility, mobility, scalability.

by tomlin 15y ago

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.
- keeperofdakeys 15y ago
  With Apples position on flash (especially on iOS), do you think they are going to leave browser 3d stuff totally alone? It does make sense though, they want people to put that stuff in an app, and not a webapp.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatever_dude 15y ago
    Goes to prove that Apple's problem is not Flash, but the web. They don't want the web to have too many features and anyone who thinks they truly support HTML5 is mistaken.

tomkarlo 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." I'll stop using that example as soon as I stop having that problem once a week. It's even worse in fashion, where designers for tiny brands continually get suckered into making flash-only sites that are essentially useless beyond being brochureware. Are there sites that use Flash to great benefit? I have no doubt, although it seems to me the examples you're using are just using it as a way to deliver media. But for 99% of web sites, Flash is a bad idea and provides little benefit. I use Flashblock on my browsers, and the only time I seem to need to unblock anything is to watch a video. That's a bad sign for folks looking for a long-term use of Flash outside of players and video games.

tomlin 15y ago
My point with Flash reaches a few thoughts into the future, while most are perfectly happy to have their ignorance contemporary. Let's just say that tomorrow Flash DIES. It's gone. No more Flash. Do you think those same shitty restaurant sites are suddenly going to become standards-loving, keyboard-jockeying HTML 5 + JS sites? Again. The issue isn't Flash. It's the industry. The same restaurants are going to call up the same vendors and ask them to provide them with, what they consider, the new hotness. We place the blame on the customer, or the user, or in this case, the technology. Perhaps all along it's just us. And our uncanny ability to misinform the client and leave them without information on accessibility, mobility, scalability.