Apple Promotes HTML5, First iPhone Game Demo in HTML5, and More

[SpinThis!]

When Apple/Adobe/Whomever comes out with a kick-ass design tool for HTML5 web sites, I'll be the first to go buy it

I agree with you there on using the canvas tag where all the cool "flash killer" sound/video/animation stuff happens. Trying to do a canvas/svg animation right now line by line in a text editor is about as enjoyable for a designer as an artist having to write postscript.

Assuming Apple gets off their asses and puts their money where their mouth is, maybe one of the big features in Motion might be some kind of canvas export.

 

[SAPPete]

Several people, including me, have posted examples that prove otherwise. Sound can be triggered by events in a canvas-based game just like in Flash. I even posted code that shows how it's done.

I didn't say it can't be done, they just didn't do it in the game demo, which some fanbois drool over as a proof of flash's demise.

 

[WilliamLondon]

And it doesn't on Linux.

Your lack of understanding is obvious. This game is being touted as a breakthrough, when it fact this was possible YEARS ago in Flash, WITH proper audio support, and across all platforms.

Not without a separate plug-in it didn't, and speaking of Linux and Flash... (in the same post no less!)

What did you expect with a demo of a new standard, that hasn't been fully locked down and not all browsers support? I'm curious - it seems expectations are way out of line with reality.

However, decision to forcefully block one or another plugin from iDevices is plain evil and such move is direct censorship of half of the internet today

Your logic when applied to freedom means that I have no freedom to kill you. Stop throwing words like 'censorship' around to evoke emotional (and irrational) responses in support of your illogical arguments.

Plug-ins are necessities to protect proprietary standards of profit-based kingdoms. Open the web and leave these stupid plug-ins in the past.

It will take transitioning, it won't happen overnight, but it does require a step in this direction.

Good on 'ya Apple!

 

[a.gomez]

You need to download a browser that is 5% of the market to see the demo... and people wonder why we just making mobile versions of our sites and not changing the main one. Let know when this is an actual web standard

 

[WilliamLondon]

HTML5 looks great....but it's no where near being ready.

You're stating the obvious and already well documented. No one expects the HTML5 spec to be ratified until maybe 2012? For something with at least 2 years to go, a demo like this isn't really all that bad is it? Demos are meant to inspire and motivate people to do something.

If you've ever worked in software development, then demoing something 2 years before release is quite astonishing. But some on here would expect full Flash capatibility (plus more you must admit) today plus 100% browser support, without understanding that big changes require transitions and transition plans. You can't just flip a switch and expect a whole new web and browsers in which to view it.

I think the world needs a bit of expectation management and an understanding what it takes "to turn a giant freighter."

You need to download a browser that is 5% of the market to see the demo... and people wonder why we just making mobile versions of our sites and not changing the main one. Let know when this is an actual web standard

And then you'll complain about having to play catch up. Delay at your own peril.

 

[johngordon]

HTML 5 demo with no sound and *****ty graphics. Hilarious to see all the fanbois rejoice. Yeah, just like flash. /yawn

I think that largely misses the point.

Again, with my web designer hat on, most sites I do have no need to be fancy pants Flash driven extravaganzas.

What they do need to be are clear and effective, with a little dose of spit, polish and interactivity. A clean looking image gallery here, a bit of AJAX driven interactivity there, and a bit of interesting typography there, combined with a clean look, and its usually job done.

CSS has already helped to keep things as clean as possible, and from the looks of it HTML5 and CSS3 will further that.

And again, people complaining about the lack of Flash on the iPhone and iPad aren't complaining about not being able to view fancy pants Flash driven extravaganzas - its predominantly about not being able to view Flash videos.

So again, for most users, for most websites that aren't a case of style over substance, Flash certainly isn't anywhere near being crucial IMO.

As someone with a design background rather than a coding background, it'll be interesting to see what tools, in my case Dreamweaver in particular, become available to develop. But presumably its just an extension of HTML and CSS, rather than being as involved as something like Objective C.

 

[macsmurf]

There isn't much CCS3 in there. It uses a bunch of javascript. All the movement is done in JS.

No it isn't. The JavaScript is a thin layer that feeds values into the Webkit 3D CSS extensions Apple apparently made for Snow Leopard. It also downloads pictures from flickr which is dependent on network connectivity, not JS speed.

Try running it in Safari on a platform where the 3D transformation functions aren't available, such as Windows 7 (haven't tried on Leopard). You'll notice that Safari looks just as crappy as Chrome, if not more so.

If you knew even basic JavaScript, you would at least suspect that this was the case before making unsubstantiated claims. In Jobs' words, please educate yourself.

 

[macsmurf]

So, how much do you get out of a fully charged iPhone/iPad if you run the trailer continuously?

Anyone?

 

[inkswamp]

Regardless of where you stand on the whole Flash vs. HTML5 debate, you have to admit that it's nice to see these kinds of effects in the browser window and not have your browser functionality partially hijacked.

 

[macsmurf]

Regardless of where you stand on the whole Flash vs. HTML5 debate, you have to admit that it's nice to see these kinds of effects in the browser window and not have your browser functionality partially hijacked.

I agree completely. It looks great and I agree with Jobs that Flash is on its way out. But we're not there yet and until that time, I prefer to have the option.

 

[Arnia]

I must confess I'm getting a little tired of the way people seem to be tying up their sense of self with either Flash or 'no-Flash'. For me, as a web developer and graphic designer, the biggest benefit of the Web Effects stack (I use that term deliberately because most of the capabilities come from parts of the rendering stack that are not HTML 5) is that there is a single rendering system to think about.

Consider that for a second. Instead of having to realise a design using CSS applied to a DOM, and then realise it again in Flash, I can use one suite of technologies all the way down. This allows me to do progressive enhancement. This allows me to apply my understanding of the box model to everything (reducing risks of impedance mismatches). This allows me to mix, for example, MathML with SVG with CSS level 3 modules with Javascript with HTML 5. In fact, something I am working on now does mix all those technologies together. The system has fewer 'boilerplate' conversions between its components, reducing the complexity for debugging. Surely that is a technological advantage those of us who claim to be designers or developers should rejoice in?

I am sure there are things that Flash can do that the Web Effects stack will never be able to do. That is fine, but I believe we should be working towards an 80/80 rule; use Flash if nothing else will do, but for the 80% of features that are used by designers 80% of the time, let us go for something simpler to understand, simpler to debug and simpler to maintain.

On another, but related, note very few people here seem to understand how the W3C process works - HTML 5 does not need to be 'ratified' (I guess what is meant here is 'become a Recommendation') before it is implemented; in fact, quite the opposite. Part of the criteria for progression of a specification to even Proposed Recommendation is that there exist a number of interoperable implementations of the majority of the specification. W3C specifications both drive and are driven by the implementor and user communities. Many of the technologies in these demos are not part of HTML 5 anyway (but rather part of CSS) and are following their own track. Thankfully, if you're following best practices then you do not need to adopt an all-or-nothing approach, and can provide an enhanced experience for your users capable of seeing it without degrading the experience of those who cannot.

 

[danielnic]

But how to programme this?

Hi,

I must admit that I really like Apple's sample gallery.

However, looking at the sample code they provide, I found it very, very disappointing that they did not give the full code for the sample gallery but simply a tremendously ugly stack of photos which disappear in the right corner of your screen.

Maybe I have missed the point, but why would they not share the whole code so that people like me can learn how to implement such things in their own websites.

Anyone an idea?

 

[highdough]

As someone who is constantly impressed by the technical knowledge of people here, I'm amazed at how quick some people are to write off a technology that is still in it's infancy and isn't even supported by most browsers, yet. It's seems petty and biased, quite frankly. It doesn't work perfectly? Gee, are you actually surprised? It's still in it's infancy. How good were the first incarnations of Flash? Hell, it's been years that it's been THE way to show movie clips and graphics and it's STILL buggy. No one is saying that HTML5 is ready to replace Flash, yet, but the idea is that it will eventually be able to do anything Flash does. Why do some one you not get that?

 

[rerelease]

Check this example of HTML5 video out (click the screen whilst it's playing to blast holes in it!)
http://craftymind.com/factory/html5video/CanvasVideo.html

what i love about that demo is that it is compatible with my firefox <3

 

[inkswamp]

I'm actually less-than-impressed with Apple's HTML5 video player. Anyone wanting to see what can really be done in HTML5, check this out:

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

 

[rhett7660]

I'm actually less-than-impressed with Apple's HTML5 video player. Anyone wanting to see what can really be done in HTML5, check this out:

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

THAT is pretty slick......

 

[Darkroom]

I've learned ActionScript myself. I find it convoluted and unpredictable. I think it, and the Flash IDE, suck.

So, I'm "hardcore with my HMTL and CSS," huh? I also do real development, have created Mac apps in C++, C, Cocoa/Obj-C, as well as development on Windows, Unix and Linux. The basic HTML/CSS/JS isn't hardcore at all (though you can make it hardcore with OOP JS and learning how to traverse and manipulate the DOM) which is why I've always been puzzled by so many "Web developers" insisting that Flash is the only way to get things done.

And frankly, every Flash "developer" I've ever met tended to over-rely on canned Flash files and pre-written code available online. I have yet to meet a Flash developer who has any significant programming skills. If someone invests that much energy into a single, proprietary development environment like that, I don't have a lot of sympathy when the inevitable times comes that it dies and leaves them in the cold. It happens. If you had real programming skills, it wouldn't matter to you. Move on to something else.

But I'm getting a little tired of the whining coming from Flash developers. You made your choice. Live with it... or learn something new. When Apple abandoned the Carbon API (which I knew very well) I could have whined about it. But instead, I moved on and learned Cocoa/Obj-C. It happens. Deal.

perceptions vary and people will see what they want to see. i find AS3 to be a very strong programming language, one which i vastly prefer over Objective-C 2.0. Most AS3 developers are also Java developers (Android OS, etc.) since the languages are syntactically similar.

you claim that flash developers rely on canned code, but this happens in every language. that doesn't necessarily equate to bad development. in fact, the last book i read about Objective-C encouraged doing so, as there's no point in recreating something that's available and well written for the development community to use. the ability to do so is one of the benefits of OOP. do you also think it's terrible that Apple offers templates with starter code when starting a new project in Xcode?

the only difference between Flash IDE and Interface Builder is that Flash allows you to create/import vector drawings and/or use a movie timeline. i think it's absolutely ridiculous when Cocoa developers brand Flash as being all about drag and drop when they themselves rely heavily on IB. if you want some examples of drag and drop exclusive, poor development using Objective-C, just take a look at some of the zillions of junk apps on Apple's App Store.

finally, Flash developers don't need to "move on" since Flash development is alive and well. to assume otherwise would be rather sheltered and apple-fanboyish.

 

[macsmurf]

I must confess I'm getting a little tired of the way people seem to be tying up their sense of self with either Flash or 'no-Flash'. For me, as a web developer and graphic designer, the biggest benefit of the Web Effects stack (I use that term deliberately because most of the capabilities come from parts of the rendering stack that are not HTML 5) is that there is a single rendering system to think about.

Consider that for a second. Instead of having to realise a design using CSS applied to a DOM, and then realise it again in Flash, I can use one suite of technologies all the way down. This allows me to do progressive enhancement. This allows me to apply my understanding of the box model to everything (reducing risks of impedance mismatches). This allows me to mix, for example, MathML with SVG with CSS level 3 modules with Javascript with HTML 5. In fact, something I am working on now does mix all those technologies together. The system has fewer 'boilerplate' conversions between its components, reducing the complexity for debugging. Surely that is a technological advantage those of us who claim to be designers or developers should rejoice in?

I am sure there are things that Flash can do that the Web Effects stack will never be able to do. That is fine, but I believe we should be working towards an 80/80 rule; use Flash if nothing else will do, but for the 80% of features that are used by designers 80% of the time, let us go for something simpler to understand, simpler to debug and simpler to maintain.

On another, but related, note very few people here seem to understand how the W3C process works - HTML 5 does not need to be 'ratified' (I guess what is meant here is 'become a Recommendation') before it is implemented; in fact, quite the opposite. Part of the criteria for progression of a specification to even Proposed Recommendation is that there exist a number of interoperable implementations of the majority of the specification. W3C specifications both drive and are driven by the implementor and user communities. Many of the technologies in these demos are not part of HTML 5 anyway (but rather part of CSS) and are following their own track. Thankfully, if you're following best practices then you do not need to adopt an all-or-nothing approach, and can provide an enhanced experience for your users capable of seeing it without degrading the experience of those who cannot.

I think anyone wold be hard pressed to argue against your points. I also haven't seen anyone (worth talking about) arguing against HTML5 except to say that it isn't there yet, which is undeniably true.

Some of Jobs' points in his open letter were also somewhat reasonable. At All Things Digital, Jobs explained that Apple has a tendency to not support technologies on their way out. That is all fair enough, but when Apple decrees that all iPhone apps must be done in C, C++, Obj-C, or JavaScript via WebKit, he is no longer "not supporting" but is instead actively blocking, with is a different thing altogether. Not only that, he is blocking other companies such as Novell and Unity, which I believe is ultimately bad for the platform, and he hasn't even got the decency to tell them and their customers whether they are in or out.

So there is a couple of discussions going on plus an enormous amount of fanboy noise pratically ensuring that the more interesting conversations won't take place in this forum.

 

[marksman]

Snarky comments...really intelligent on your part. I've seen the demos way before it was posted here, btw.

Flash doesn't "suck." That's childish.

No, it is not childish, although that might be an apt description of flash.

I've developed on flash before. ActionScript is not the greatest, but it is what it is.

Yes mostly sucky and mediocre. Certainly not something one should make a web page out of, for sure. There are a handful of useful things that could be used within a web page using flash, but for a website itself, no not a chance, sucky, suck suck.

I like HTML5, but there is no way it can compete with Flash right now. Flash has too much history and is capable of more than any web platforms.

Flash doesn't exist in the mobile space which is the future so sayonara!

It's funny how the people who hate Flash because it's "not open" or "too slow." Are those the only reasons?

No, I hate flash because it sucks.

Ask any real web developer. They will never agree. If you're going to do simple websites, HTML5 is fine. Anything advanced, you need to use Flash.

I am a real web developer. I have been developing web pages since 1993.

Really.

 

[marksman]

I'm guessing it's because Apple is offloading all of the graphic drawing to the GPU. So a feature that ONLY works in 'their' browser.

This only going to create more confusion with some people on this site, as they'll probably assume all HTML 5 AJAX content performs the same, weather it's a PC or Mac, or Safari or Chrome, when in reality that's not the case.

Anyways, as a developer, Safari is in the minority, so these are features I won't support. Now if IE and FireFox jump on board, that's a different story.

Do you understand what a demo is?

It is a demo of what HTML5 can do.

They have it limited to Safari so they can properly control the experience since HTML 5 is still being adopted. It is not to hide anything or cover it up. It is what it is, a demo of HTML5. I am not sure why people are struggling to understand this.

The idea that you won't use it until it goes to Firefox or Chrome or whatever is ridiculous. Nobody is asking you to do anything with it.. They are just showing people what is capable with HTML5.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

No, it is not childish, although that might be an apt description of flash.




Yes mostly sucky and mediocre. Certainly not something one should make a web page out of, for sure. There are a handful of useful things that could be used within a web page using flash, but for a website itself, no not a chance, sucky, suck suck.




Flash doesn't exist in the mobile space which is the future so sayonara!




No, I hate flash because it sucks.




I am a real web developer. I have been developing web pages since 1993.

Really.

A post this simple minded can only be handled by resorting to the ignore list.

 

[Burger Thing]

If you think about it - Apple's internet censorship is way WAY worse than Chinese one and there is absolutely no way am I going to support it by splashing my money on it in any way...

You have no idea what you are talking about

Greetings from China!

 

[Max(IT)]

Because HTML 5 isnt ready for primetime, illustrating perfectly why Jobs is an idiot for blocking Flash, a format that actually IS a viable plugin. Actually he's just egomaniacal, the idiots are the parrots that run around forums screaming FLASH IS BAD FLASH IS BAD.

keep your "idiots" for you, dude.
Flash ACTUALLY IS BAD.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I must confess I'm getting a little tired of the way people seem to be tying up their sense of self with either Flash or 'no-Flash'. For me, as a web developer and graphic designer, the biggest benefit of the Web Effects stack (I use that term deliberately because most of the capabilities come from parts of the rendering stack that are not HTML 5) is that there is a single rendering system to think about.

Consider that for a second. Instead of having to realise a design using CSS applied to a DOM, and then realise it again in Flash, I can use one suite of technologies all the way down. This allows me to do progressive enhancement. This allows me to apply my understanding of the box model to everything (reducing risks of impedance mismatches). This allows me to mix, for example, MathML with SVG with CSS level 3 modules with Javascript with HTML 5. In fact, something I am working on now does mix all those technologies together. The system has fewer 'boilerplate' conversions between its components, reducing the complexity for debugging. Surely that is a technological advantage those of us who claim to be designers or developers should rejoice in?

I am sure there are things that Flash can do that the Web Effects stack will never be able to do. That is fine, but I believe we should be working towards an 80/80 rule; use Flash if nothing else will do, but for the 80% of features that are used by designers 80% of the time, let us go for something simpler to understand, simpler to debug and simpler to maintain.

On another, but related, note very few people here seem to understand how the W3C process works - HTML 5 does not need to be 'ratified' (I guess what is meant here is 'become a Recommendation') before it is implemented; in fact, quite the opposite. Part of the criteria for progression of a specification to even Proposed Recommendation is that there exist a number of interoperable implementations of the majority of the specification. W3C specifications both drive and are driven by the implementor and user communities. Many of the technologies in these demos are not part of HTML 5 anyway (but rather part of CSS) and are following their own track. Thankfully, if you're following best practices then you do not need to adopt an all-or-nothing approach, and can provide an enhanced experience for your users capable of seeing it without degrading the experience of those who cannot.

Ditto.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I think anyone wold be hard pressed to argue against your points. I also haven't seen anyone (worth talking about) arguing against HTML5 except to say that it isn't there yet, which is undeniably true.

Some of Jobs' points in his open letter were also somewhat reasonable. At All Things Digital, Jobs explained that Apple has a tendency to not support technologies on their way out. That is all fair enough, but when Apple decrees that all iPhone apps must be done in C, C++, Obj-C, or JavaScript via WebKit, he is no longer "not supporting" but is instead actively blocking, with is a different thing altogether. Not only that, he is blocking other companies such as Novell and Unity, which I believe is ultimately bad for the platform, and he hasn't even got the decency to tell them and their customers whether they are in or out.

So there is a couple of discussions going on plus an enormous amount of fanboy noise pratically ensuring that the more interesting conversations won't take place in this forum.

I wouldn't worry about Novell and it's Mono stack. Novell is courting buyers to avoid going bankruptcy. So far, they aren't getting what they want--high priced offers and you might be seeing them disappear sooner, rather than later.