Steve Jobs' Wall Street Journal Visit Reportedly Included Arguments Against Flash

[zweigand]

re: ogg Theora

I know Wikipedia uses it, and quite frankly, it's awful. It's slow and clunky.

h.264 has already gotten more traction than ogg ever will.

Once the Firefox team bites the bullet and allows for h.264 HTML5 video (and they will) this discussion can be put to rest …at least until the next battle for a standard codec arises.

People complaining that h.264 isn't open. Which is more open? (h.264 + HTML5) or (h.264 + Flash)?

Get over it, you are going to be getting served h.264 either way. Pick the lesser of two "evils" and move forward.

 

[diamond.g]

Actually, I did. Then I read the license agreement. Not that I worried too much about that, but I realized 1) I would have difficulty with an OEM serial if I wanted to run Win7 via Boot Camp and Fusion/Parallels (switching between Fusion and Parallels, depending on which is faster at the moment) and 2) I wouldn't be able to transfer it to my next Mac anyway (my understanding is an OEM serial becomes locked to the original hardware on which it is installed).

To add insult to injury, I can't run a single license of Win 7 on both my desktop machine and laptop, even though I never use both simultaneously.

Ridiculous Windows activation schemes. And people have the gall to call Apple control Nazis and overpriced? Do you know how much it would cost to legally install Windows 7 on each of the Macs I have in my house? A heck of a lot more than what I paid for a family pack of OS X. Seems there's a Microsoft tax too, which (unsurprisingly) the Apple haters never mention.

Which OEM version did you get? I seem to remember MS changing the licensing to allow you to run your OS in hardware and virtualized (only one each). I think it "requires" the Ultimate version to do so though.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

Actually, I did. Then I read the license agreement. Not that I worried too much about that, but I realized 1) I would have difficulty with an OEM serial if I wanted to run Win7 via Boot Camp and Fusion/Parallels (switching between Fusion and Parallels, depending on which is faster at the moment) and 2) I wouldn't be able to transfer it to my next Mac anyway (my understanding is an OEM serial becomes locked to the original hardware on which it is installed).



To add insult to injury, I can't run a single license of Win 7 on both my desktop machine and laptop, even though I never use both simultaneously.



Ridiculous Windows activation schemes. And people have the gall to call Apple control Nazis and overpriced? Do you know how much it would cost to legally install Windows 7 on each of the Macs I have in my house? A heck of a lot more than what I paid for a family pack of OS X. Seems there's a Microsoft tax too, which (unsurprisingly) the Apple haters never mention.

Which OEM version did you get? I seem to remember MS changing the licensing to allow you to run your OS in hardware and virtualized (only one each). I think it "requires" the Ultimate version to do so though.

I think they did but Laguna wants to run the same bootcamp installation in Bootcamp, VMware AND Parallels. 2 virtualised machines and on his Mac. (Effectively, three different machines on the same install)

 

[CQd44]

Actually, I did. Then I read the license agreement. Not that I worried too much about that, but I realized 1) I would have difficulty with an OEM serial if I wanted to run Win7 via Boot Camp and Fusion/Parallels (switching between Fusion and Parallels, depending on which is faster at the moment) and 2) I wouldn't be able to transfer it to my next Mac anyway (my understanding is an OEM serial becomes locked to the original hardware on which it is installed).

To add insult to injury, I can't run a single license of Win 7 on both my desktop machine and laptop, even though I never use both simultaneously.

Ridiculous Windows activation schemes. And people have the gall to call Apple control Nazis and overpriced? Do you know how much it would cost to legally install Windows 7 on each of the Macs I have in my house? A heck of a lot more than what I paid for a family pack of OS X. Seems there's a Microsoft tax too, which (unsurprisingly) the Apple haters never mention.

If I remember correctly, to do the same with new copies of snow leopard it was either you buy the family pack or individual copies. I imagine it was the same with leopard. One license per computer.

 

[Anuba]

I wouldn't be able to transfer it to my next Mac anyway (my understanding is an OEM serial becomes locked to the original hardware on which it is installed).

It's a little more tolerant than that. I have an OEM copy of Vista that has gone through 3 machines. For the third installation I had to activate via telephone, you dial a toll free number and do a challenge/response thing and you're good to go. I could probably do a 2nd telephone activation, after that I'm guessing it'll be "please contact Microsoft"...

To add insult to injury, I can't run a single license of Win 7 on both my desktop machine and laptop, even though I never use both simultaneously.

And...? While some software allows for two installations (MS Office, for example), OS licenses usually don't. OS X is no exception -- why do you think OS X is sold in 'family packs' if they were OK with multiple installs for a single license? It doesn't stop you from installing on multiple machines -- but it's not allowed.

And people have the gall to call Apple control Nazis and overpriced? Do you know how much it would cost to legally install Windows 7 on each of the Macs I have in my house? A heck of a lot more than what I paid for a family pack of OS X. Seems there's a Microsoft tax too, which (unsurprisingly) the Apple haters never mention.

I'd love to see Apple's software prices if they were a software-only company. With their insatiable lust for premium pricing, I'm thinking $500 for a Snow Leopard license and a fat USB protection dongle to go with it. But they can pretend to be cheap on the software side, due to their massive margins on the hardware.

 

[JackAxe]

h.264 has already gotten more traction than ogg ever will.

Once the Firefox team bites the bullet and allows for h.264 HTML5 video (and they will) this discussion can be put to rest …at least until the next battle for a standard codec arises.

People complaining that h.264 isn't open. Which is more open? (h.264 + HTML5) or (h.264 + Flash)?

Get over it, you are going to be getting served h.264 either way. Pick the lesser of two "evils" and move forward.

To rest? You forgot someone... Where's Internet explorer on that chart? Well, that kind of throws a wrench in things, since it's still absolutely the dominant browser.

And what a wonderful browser it is.

 

[LagunaSol]

Is there something specific that Parallels offers over Fusion (or vice versa) which would quantify such a need?

They seem to leapfrog each other in performance with each version release, with Parallels currently on top. I own both, and I'd like the ability to use whichever is fastest at the moment.

Its a pity you have already purchased both parallels and Vmware (multiple licences to run on both machines) as that must have already set you back a few dollars.

Fortunately I've acquired both free after rebate with machine purchases.

Which OEM version did you get? I seem to remember MS changing the licensing to allow you to run your OS in hardware and virtualized (only one each). I think it "requires" the Ultimate version to do so though.

Professional.

If I remember correctly, to do the same with new copies of snow leopard it was either you buy the family pack or individual copies. I imagine it was the same with leopard. One license per computer.

This may be what the paperwork says, but nothing prevents me from installing on both my desktop and laptop computer. I didn't really even need to purchase a family pack to be able (though not legally) to do this, but I did anyway. Microsoft gives you no such leeway. You give them your money, but they're still going to make good and sure you are adhering to that license. Makes you want to just pirate the stuff.

It's a little more tolerant than that. I have an OEM copy of Vista that has gone through 3 machines. For the third installation I had to activate via telephone, you dial a toll free number and do a challenge/response thing and you're good to go. I could probably do a 2nd telephone activation, after that I'm guessing it'll be "please contact Microsoft"...

I'm not sure I want to end up in a situation where I have to make "that phone call."

Maybe I'll just send back this OEM disc and stick with XP. I'm torn.

And...? While some software allows for two installations (MS Office, for example), OS licenses usually don't. OS X is no exception -- why do you think OS X is sold in 'family packs' if they were OK with multiple installs for a single license? It doesn't stop you from installing on multiple machines -- but it's not allowed.

Yet Windows does stop you from doing this.

I'd love to see Apple's software prices if they were a software-only company. With their insatiable lust for premium pricing, I'm thinking $500 for a Snow Leopard license and a fat USB protection dongle to go with it.

Windows is little better - and with 95% market share, this should not be.

But they can pretend to be cheap on the software side, due to their massive margins on the hardware.

And Microsoft can pretend to be cheap on the hardware side (actually, riding the broken backs of their hardware "partners" - who starve on slim profits) due to their massive margins on the software.

But all you hear about is the "Apple tax." Rarely does anyone mention the "Microsoft tax" - which is just as real (and equally burdensome).

 

[zweigand]

To rest? You forgot someone... Where's Internet explorer on that chart? Well, that kind of throws a wrench in things, since it's still absolutely the dominant browser.

And what a wonderful browser it is.

IE is in the same predicament as Flash. They are going to have to remain competitive, or lose marketshare even faster than they are now. Until then, sites that don't render correctly in IE can either suggest the installation of an alternate browser, or even easier, simply have them install the Chrome Frame for IE.

 

[Opiyum]

Uhm, who cares about your definition of a "standard."

I'm not talking about my definition or your definition of some subjective "standard". I am talking about the real non-subjective Internet Standard as defined by the Internet Engineering Task Force.

... If Flash is used by virtually every computer in the world, on every platform, then for most of the sane people it is, in practice, a standard.

My only quibble is with your choice of words "every platform". Perhaps you could have instead used the words "every platform that matters to me" instead.

Other than that no argument here from me, but are you name calling for emotional reasons and personal investments with Flash or do you think I am, in fact, actually insane?

Knock yourself out - if you want your product to look like Web 1991 (or Web Lite, which is what you are going to have on the iPad).

Not true. Most of the web sites I visit only use Flash for very special features like election results, and advertising. The vast majority of these sites are strictly html and they look much much better than the web did in 1991 I am sure. When I started using the web in 1993 all we had was unformatted text and some hyperlinks. The "img" tag had not yet been added to html officially at the time if my memory is correct.

... But please, let the rest of us, the va-a-a-ast majority, enjoy our full web experience, including the rich Flash sites many of us like.

I would never to presume to have any sort of authority to make you use or stop using Flash as a developer or a web internet user, enjoy it all you want.

I do not believe the "the va-a-a-ast majority" of web developers are in your camp on this, and most internet users probably don't know or care what Flash even is; they just like watching video's on YouTube and could care less how it works.

Please do not misunderstand. I'm not making an emotional argument about this; I am making an appeal using my knowledge of the web, logic, and history.

 

[Darkroom]

I hope Flash kills Apple. OK, maybe not kill, just severely wounds it. I've been an Apple lover since the days of the Apple II+ (I learned to program in BASIC on that machine) and I've purchased untold numbers of Apple products over the years. But I'm also a Flash developer and I love the platform, so I'm of conflicted loyalties. I recently chose an Android phone over the iPhone mainly because I'm tired of being hemmed in by Apple's closed-loop world. I've also grown weary of Apple's schtick and of Jobs' insane arrogance. I still admire Apple, but I no longer love the company.

i'm a recovering apple fanboy and a flash developer. i completely empathize.

Everyone else is bending over backward to get Flash for their mobile platforms because it's the only thing they have that stands out against Apple's iProducts. The ironic thing is that if Apple had allowed Flash on the original iPhone, you can pretty much guarantee Adobe wouldn't be busting their butts optimizing it now. They simply wouldn't have the motivation to impress anyone. You Flash lovers should be thanking Apple for holding out.

ahh, the old "apple made them do better" argument. a classic, final maneuver used by fanboys during the closing of a case lost long ago. it was textbook! bravo!

 

[ChazUK]

They seem to leapfrog each other in performance with each version release, with Parallels currently on top. I own both, and I'd like the ability to use whichever is fastest at the moment.

Would you not be concerned with the conflicts of VMWare additions and Parallels tools running in tandem? I'm sure such a setup would cause conflicts and degrade performance so much so that the benefits of being able to switch between Parallels and VMWare would be lost.

Fortunately I've acquired both free after rebate with machine purchases.

That is handy.

But all you hear about is the "Apple tax." Rarely does anyone mention the "Microsoft tax" - which is just as real (and equally burdensome).

Apple tax, Microsoft tax. Looks like we're fu*ked either way and that supporting either one (Apple or MS) is ******* insane.

Is it time for us all take a stand, move to Linux and stop complaining about either party?
Screw Apple. Screw Microsoft!

 

[JackAxe]

IE is in the same predicament as Flash. They are going to have to remain competitive, or lose marketshare even faster than they are now. Until then, sites that don't render correctly in IE can either suggest the installation of an alternate browser, or even easier, simply have them install the Chrome Frame for IE.

Predicament, as in both are still in a very healthy position as market leaders. If that's a predicament, sign me up.

Competition is good for business. Maybe you should email them that advice, because I'm sure both companies have already thrown in the towel.

Easier... Install another browser? Suggest away, but this is an unrealistic solution.

Simply install Chrome Frame? A "plug-in." Oh the irony!

Maybe there should be a Google Frame for Safari also, because Google's GEARS, which is being reworked for "HTML 5," will not work in Safari under Snow Leopard. Now that's ironic.

Have you installed Google Frame? If not, do so. I have, it's installed on my PC and it doesn't work with any of the HTML 5 examples I've tried, because most developers haven't included this; "<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">."

Google's own examples don't work in GF, the Acid test still fails, and this is what you propose? Why, because it offers a few more features for IE? This is not a solution, it's only polluting the problem with another plug-in that offers absolutely nothing to the end user that can't be done "better" with Flash and it's almost a guarantee Flash is already installed.

 

[lpetrich]

When using my macbook on battery, I lose 2+ hours of life if I go to a site with flash and spend anytime on the site. Also, my macbook gets about 20 degrees warmer anytime I use flash...

I've also noticed Flash being a CPU hog. When I play a video in YouTube, it eats much more CPU time when I play it with YT's Flash player than with its HTML5 player.

HAHA Go Steve!

So long Flash - you were a large, festering pimple on the rear-end of the internet.

Tee hee.

However, HTML5 doesn't seem very well adapted to the sort of content lockdown that proprietary-content creators often want. Such lockdown is easy to achieve with Flash, however.

That goes not only for audio and video, but also for games and demos and the like.

For the latter, one can use HTML5 <canvas> or SVG controlled with JavaScript, but one would have to rewrite one's games and demos from the bottom up to use such approaches.

 

[MorphingDragon]

h.264 has already gotten more traction than ogg ever will.

Once the Firefox team bites the bullet and allows for h.264 HTML5 video (and they will) this discussion can be put to rest …at least until the next battle for a standard codec arises.

People complaining that h.264 isn't open. Which is more open? (h.264 + HTML5) or (h.264 + Flash)?

Get over it, you are going to be getting served h.264 either way. Pick the lesser of two "evils" and move forward.

You left out Opera. Which uses Theora.

 

[MorphingDragon]

re: ogg Theora

I know Wikipedia uses it, and quite frankly, it's awful. It's slow and clunky.

Not with proper GStreamer or Xine codecs. Wikipedias implementations of Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora are Shocking!

With the Fedora implementation of Ogg (It uses the latest version) I would put it up there with H264 disregarding the lack of hardware acceleration. Like it matters, windows is the only OS that has proper Video acceleration.

With Ogg Theora, Audiophiles swear by it. The only other compressed format I've seen like it is VBR MPEG4 AAC

Even then, theres no reason why Mozilla can't use Video Lan's X264 project. Video Lan has never been done for patent infringement, yet.

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html

 

[zweigand]

ahh, the old "apple made them do better" argument. a classic, final maneuver used by fanboys during the closing of a case lost long ago. it was textbook! bravo!

What case have I lost? I haven't lost my "case" until Flash gets on the iPhone/iPad, or until the iProducts fail because of Flash's absence.

Yeah, Adobe all of a sudden taking great interest in improving the Flash experience on the Mac after years of neglect has NOTHING to do with the recent turn of events.

 

[zweigand]

You left out Opera. Which uses Theora.

It's not my chart …it came from HERE

I guess they didn't think Opera was relevant enough to mention.

EDIT: Actually, they have another chart on the same page that explains Opera's absence. It's because Opera apparently doesn't support the <video> element …which is the MAIN feature I want to see Flash lose its grip over. I couldn't care less about Flash games, or anything else.

 

[zweigand]

Predicament, as in both are still in a very healthy position as market leaders. If that's a predicament, sign me up.

Competition is good for business. Maybe you should email them that advice, because I'm sure both companies have already thrown in the towel.

Easier... Install another browser? Suggest away, but this is an unrealistic solution.

Simply install Chrome Frame? A "plug-in." Oh the irony!

Maybe there should be a Google Frame for Safari also, because Google's GEARS, which is being reworked for "HTML 5," will not work in Safari under Snow Leopard. Now that's ironic.

Have you installed Google Frame? If not, do so. I have, it's installed on my PC and it doesn't work with any of the HTML 5 examples I've tried, because most developers haven't included this; "<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">."

Google's own examples don't work in GF, the Acid test still fails, and this is what you propose? Why, because it offers a few more features for IE? This is not a solution, it's only polluting the problem with another plug-in that offers absolutely nothing to the end user that can't be done "better" with Flash and it's almost a guarantee Flash is already installed.

You miss my point. If there is content that people want, and IE doesn't allow them to see it …they will move on. (unless they are on a work computer that they have no control over, which doesn't matter anyway)

I'm not saying IE (or Flash) is going to outright die. I don't think I've ever said that. The only thing I've said HTML5 will KILL is Flash's relevance in standard web video distribution. I stand by that statement, and we'll see what happens soon enough. Also, by Flash and IE being in the "same predicament" you missed my point as well. The point isn't that they are plummeting to their death …it's that they now have serious competition. They aren't going to be able to just sit around like kings and dictate how the web works anymore.


EDIT: Responding to Google Gears.
Google is killing gears off and replacing its functionality within HTML5. How is that anything but a statement of HTML5's potential? The fact that it doesn't work in Safari is because it's NOT HTML5 YET.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I have to ask this question--do you think Apple is daring enough to tell users of Apple computers that run the real MacOS X 10.5.x and 10.6.x versions that they can no longer run Adobe Flash and must start using HTML 5.0 technologies?

If Apple really wants to get rid of Flash, then Jobs must back up his claims and force ALL iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and Mac users away from Flash. You wonder will Steve Jobs make this gigantic "leap of faith."

 

[GoodWatch]

I have to ask this question--do you think Apple is daring enough to tell users of Apple computers that run the real MacOS X 10.5.x and 10.6.x versions that they can no longer run Adobe Flash and must start using HTML 5.0 technologies?

If Apple really wants to get rid of Flash, then Jobs must back up his claims and force ALL iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and Mac users away from Flash. You wonder will Steve Jobs make this gigantic "leap of faith."

I think it's the other way around as Apple themselves do not provide Adobe Flash, Adobe does. It would be a complete different ballgame if Apple would actively prohibited Flash installing and/or running on any of their OS's. In other words, blocking that product from running at all. SJ (and SJ = Apple) wants to convince the world that Flash is a dead-end street and that everyone who's anything on the WWW should drop it it in favour of another technology.

 

[MorphingDragon]

It's not my chart …it came from HERE

I guess they didn't think Opera was relevant enough to mention.

EDIT: Actually, they have another chart on the same page that explains Opera's absence. It's because Opera apparently doesn't support the <video> element …which is the MAIN feature I want to see Flash lose its grip over. I couldn't care less about Flash games, or anything else.

He could of Said Opera Beta anyway.

 

[Hal Itosis]

Everyone else is bending over backward to get Flash for their mobile platforms because it's the only thing they have that stands out against Apple's iProducts. The ironic thing is that if Apple had allowed Flash on the original iPhone, you can pretty much guarantee Adobe wouldn't be busting their butts optimizing it now. They simply wouldn't have the motivation to impress anyone. You Flash lovers should be thanking Apple for holding out.

ahh, the old "apple made them do better" argument. a classic, final maneuver used by fanboys during the closing of a case lost long ago. it was textbook! bravo!

Huh? Who's the fanboy here? What part of “Flash's extreme inefficiency would burn out a remote device's battery in an hour” do you fail to grasp? Why would anyone be so eager to defend something as craptastic as that, to invent 'classic textbook maneuvers' heretofore unheard of? Oh, that's right... you're a Flash developer. Perhaps you can link to some Flash-filled page you've designed that doesn't hog my CPU and ramp the fans up to 11?

 

[JackAxe]

You miss my point. If there is content that people want, and IE doesn't allow them to see it …they will move on. (unless they are on a work computer that they have no control over, which doesn't matter anyway)

Yes... It's the same now as it was back in the nineties.

I'm not saying IE (or Flash) is going to outright die. I don't think I've ever said that. The only thing I've said HTML5 will KILL is Flash's relevance in standard web video distribution. I stand by that statement, and we'll see what happens soon enough. Also, by Flash and IE being in the "same predicament" you missed my point as well. The point isn't that they are plummeting to their death …it's that they now have serious competition. They aren't going to be able to just sit around like kings and dictate how the web works anymore.

LOL, you just said it now, but on that die part, I never mentioned it either.

Until HTML 5 is adopted across the board(Microsoft being key) and FireFox switches to H.264 like Adobe and the rest of the bunch, no, HTML 5 will not kill Flash's video relevance any time soon, if ever. Not when Microsoft has its own video format, which it has so nicely integrated into Silverlite. Not when the entertainment industry wants more control over their content, something an open system really doesn't allow.

Also, when did IE and Flash not have serious competition? When Flash was Macromedia early on, I heard SVG will push it out! Then Go Live comes along and I hear that it will replace Flash! I've personally wanted IE to die, but those pesky rabbits over at Microsoft go and release a new OS and market it.

I didn't miss the point. First off, that's you reading way beyond anything I wrote and you inserting your own assumption. I also know that both companies are adjusting and have been. Something you're unwilling to really give them credit for, since your responses have been about they should do this, they'll need to do this, etc. Why on your part you'd assume they're not taking measures to adjust to the changing times, and then offer advice is somewhat arrogant, as if you know best.

The only predicament I see, is that HTML 5 brings the same "problems" that HTML 4 has, it doesn't bring on a resolve as no one can agree on which standards to support, it only adds to the confusion and won't smooth out for years. Just like AJAX HTML 4, it's still a limited-hack with the same cross-browser compatibility issues when compared to a plug-in like Flash.

And Kings dictating... What? OK, push Microsoft aside, and as yourself, how is an optional plug-in dictating how things work? It's not. If you want dictation, look at Steve Jobs and his recent HISSY-FIT. The guy throws a "strategic" fit and Mac/HTML 5 zealots crawl out of the wood works to convey his message of FUD as if it's fact. As if they were deputized by Jobs to go forth and spread his agenda that a CLOSED off system is good.

EDIT: Responding to Google Gears.
Google is killing gears off and replacing its functionality within HTML5. How is that anything but a statement of HTML5's potential? The fact that it doesn't work in Safari is because it's NOT HTML5 YET.

This is what I get for visiting sites like SlashDot and so on, which stated they were abandoning Safari all together.

Potential is one thing, but currently HTML 5 is still a draft, so even it's not yet;
http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/05/_watching_the_google_io.html

You see potential, I see a step back. BTW, have you tried HTML 5 apps on your closed off device? I crashed my Touch more than once trying some of these HTML 5 examples. :]

Here, read this guy's blog, your views on Adobe/Flash can use a fresh perspective;
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02/adobe_isnt_in_the_flash_business.html

 

[MorphingDragon]

Yes... It's the same now as it was back in the nineties.




LOL, you just said it now, but on that die part, I never mentioned it either.

Until HTML 5 is adopted across the board(Microsoft being key) and FireFox switches to H.264 like Adobe and the rest of the bunch, no, HTML 5 will not kill Flash's video relevance any time soon, if ever. Not when Microsoft has its own video format, which it has so nicely integrated into Silverlite. Not when the entertainment industry wants more control over their content, something an open system really doesn't allow.

Also, when did IE and Flash not have serious competition? When Flash was Macromedia early on, I heard SVG will push it out! Then Go Live comes along and I hear that it will replace Flash! I've personally wanted IE to die, but those pesky rabbits over at Microsoft go and release a new OS and market it.

I didn't miss the point. First off, that's you reading way beyond anything I wrote and you inserting your own assumption. I also know that both companies are adjusting and have been. Something you're unwilling to really give them credit for, since your responses have been about they should do this, they'll need to do this, etc. Why on your part you'd assume they're not taking measures to adjust to the changing times, and then offer advice is somewhat arrogant, as if you know best.

The only predicament I see, is that HTML 5 brings the same "problems" that HTML 4 has, it doesn't bring on a resolve as no one can agree on which standards to support, it only adds to the confusion and won't smooth out for years. Just like AJAX HTML 4, it's still a limited-hack with the same cross-browser compatibility issues when compared to a plug-in like Flash.

And Kings dictating... What? OK, push Microsoft aside, and as yourself, how is an optional plug-in dictating how things work? It's not. If you want dictation, look at Steve Jobs and his recent HISSY-FIT. The guy throws a "strategic" fit and Mac/HTML 5 zealots crawl out of the wood works to convey his message of FUD as if it's fact. As if they were deputized by Jobs to go forth and spread his agenda that a CLOSED off system is good.



This is what I get for visiting sites like SlashDot and so on, which stated they were abandoning Safari all together.

Potential is one thing, but currently HTML 5 is still a draft, so even it's not yet;
http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/05/_watching_the_google_io.html

You see potential, I see a step back. BTW, have you tried HTML 5 apps on your closed off device? I crashed my Touch more than once trying some of these HTML 5 examples. :]

Here, read this guy's blog, your views on Adobe/Flash can use a fresh perspective;
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02/adobe_isnt_in_the_flash_business.html

We all know HTML5 is a draft spec. But its kinda the Beta that Windows 7 was.

Those HTML5 apps you we're using are most likely not really HTML5 and just Javascript with a few HTML5 script tags which haven't changed in functionality, like the example the guy did above with the depth of perception Vector Javascript thingy. HTML5 by itself is not capable of programing. IF HTML5 was really going to overtake Flash they would need to make a new scripted language that isn't is bloated as Javascript, probably executed at an OS Level not the Browser level. IMO, CSS3 has had more improvements.

 

[zweigand]

Until HTML 5 is adopted across the board(Microsoft being key) and FireFox switches to H.264 like Adobe and the rest of the bunch, no, HTML 5 will not kill Flash's video relevance any time soon, if ever.

You are acting like it's all or nothing. There will be a transition period where both types of browsers will be catered to. If the browser won't support the new code, it'll simply fall back to Flash. (i.e. what YouTube is currently doing if you are in the HTML5 beta)

Also, when did IE and Flash not have serious competition?

Um, IE had no competition after they offed Netscape, until Firefox came out. Years of stagnation. Flash has been ruling the roost for years as well. They've recently got a little bit of competition with silverlight, but HTML5 is the first real threat.

how is an optional plug-in dictating how things work? It's not.

I give you points for calling Flash "optional" …if you didn't notice, a lot of the people in these threads seem to think it's absolutely essential.

If you want dictation, look at Steve Jobs and his recent HISSY-FIT. The guy throws a "strategic" fit and Mac/HTML 5 zealots crawl out of the wood works to convey his message of FUD as if it's fact. As if they were deputized by Jobs to go forth and spread his agenda that a CLOSED off system is good.

Convey his message as if it's fact? Hell yes I do. I know it's fact; I've seen it first hand on every Mac I've owned.

You see potential, I see a step back. BTW, have you tried HTML 5 apps on your closed off device? I crashed my Touch more than once trying some of these HTML 5 examples. :]

If I were a "Fanboy" as you claim, I'd probably have a Touch or iPhone. Yet I do not. So no.

As I said above. The only thing I care about is video support. I don't care about games, graphics, etc. All that crap can stay in Flash, and I suspect it will for at least half a decade.

Here, read this guy's blog, your views on Adobe/Flash can use a fresh perspective;
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02/adobe_isnt_in_the_flash_business.html

Um, I read almost everything John Nack writes …and I usually agree with him. (cause he's usually not talking about Flash)