Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why HTML5 is not going to replace Flash...
- Thread starter iphonegeek786
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, very interesting article. I agree that flash video is here for the forseeable future, at least the next few years.
I think with the uproar that has come by Apple not including flash on the ipad, that Apple is going to have to try and work with Adobe on making flash work effectively on the ipad. I know Apple claims flash is buggy and slow and uses battery power and crashes systems... but can't they work with Adobe to find a way to fix some of those problems and put flash on the ipad to some degree?
I know Adobe wants to get flash on the ipad, and I know the vast majority of consumers want it to. So, unless Steve Jobs is so stuborn that he will never even try to work out a way to put flash on the ipad, I see it eventually happening... maybe by next year.
I think with the uproar that has come by Apple not including flash on the ipad, that Apple is going to have to try and work with Adobe on making flash work effectively on the ipad. I know Apple claims flash is buggy and slow and uses battery power and crashes systems... but can't they work with Adobe to find a way to fix some of those problems and put flash on the ipad to some degree?
I know Adobe wants to get flash on the ipad, and I know the vast majority of consumers want it to. So, unless Steve Jobs is so stuborn that he will never even try to work out a way to put flash on the ipad, I see it eventually happening... maybe by next year.
Why HTML5 is not going to replace Flash...
EDIT: There is another article from CNET on HTML vs FLASH
Gizmodo has written up an excellent piece on why HTML5 wont be the solution to the webs existing dependence on Flash. Here are a few highlights from the Article:
Source: Giz Explains: Why HTML5 Isn't Going to Save the Internet
Browsers have to support it
Lack of DRM Protection
There is a YouTube app, but this was still an interesting point:
Adobe is pushing for improvements on the Desktop and Mobile platforms
So while it is a valid point that several content delivery services like Hulu can create Apps to deliver their content securely, Flash is still deeply rooted in the web, and isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.
If Apples position againts Flash is that it doesn't perform, we'll see if that opinion changes with Flash 10.1 release, that has the intended purpose of of improving performance.
Flash 10.1 Multi Touch demo
Flash 10.1 running on Smartphones and Netbooks
![3997654684_3ebda87830.jpg]()
![3997655202_cb725826ab.jpg]()
EDIT: There is another article from CNET on HTML vs FLASH
Gizmodo has written up an excellent piece on why HTML5 wont be the solution to the webs existing dependence on Flash. Here are a few highlights from the Article:
Source: Giz Explains: Why HTML5 Isn't Going to Save the Internet
Browsers have to support it
Lack of DRM Protection
There is a YouTube app, but this was still an interesting point:
Adobe is pushing for improvements on the Desktop and Mobile platforms
So while it is a valid point that several content delivery services like Hulu can create Apps to deliver their content securely, Flash is still deeply rooted in the web, and isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.
If Apples position againts Flash is that it doesn't perform, we'll see if that opinion changes with Flash 10.1 release, that has the intended purpose of of improving performance.
Flash 10.1 Multi Touch demo
Flash 10.1 running on Smartphones and Netbooks
It won't replace Flash in terms of games and animation but it may do some damage in terms of video.
I do think HTML5 is the future for mobile device though. It will make mobile browsing simpler.
Javascript replaced flash for a lot of things but it didn't kill it. Soon HTML5 will replace some more things but it won't kill it. Eventually though it will go.
I do think HTML5 is the future for mobile device though. It will make mobile browsing simpler.
Javascript replaced flash for a lot of things but it didn't kill it. Soon HTML5 will replace some more things but it won't kill it. Eventually though it will go.
I hate to sound like an Apple fanboy, because I am reakly more of Flash hater than anything. But let me offer few counterpoints.
To be fair, there's still the issue of codecs. Firefox and Opera support obscure but free and open Ogg Theora (which is what HTML5 draft originally chose). Chrome and Safari (as well as YouTube and Vimeo) support industry standard but not free H.264.
That said, IE9 is rumored to be going with H.264, so I think Firefox will have to relent and support H.264 as well.
Whether HTML5 should support DRM is a good question though.
True, but IE9 is adding HTML5, which should close the issue.
To be fair, there's still the issue of codecs. Firefox and Opera support obscure but free and open Ogg Theora (which is what HTML5 draft originally chose). Chrome and Safari (as well as YouTube and Vimeo) support industry standard but not free H.264.
That said, IE9 is rumored to be going with H.264, so I think Firefox will have to relent and support H.264 as well.
As you pointed out, Hulu and Netflix could (and are) release iPhone apps.
Whether HTML5 should support DRM is a good question though.
I think Adobe is approaching this all wrong. Adobe should work with Apple to release an app similar to YouTube, where clicking on a Flash content (from Safari) would launch a Flash app. Perhaps Adobe did suggest this very solution, and if so, it should write about it in its blog to get people's support.
I am not going to read any of it, because HTML5 is going to replace flash.
Everyone is moving towards standards compliance, which will be HTML5 and will not involve flash.
Any other consideration is daft.
Nobody cares what4 Adobe is doing at this point. Adobe get back in the kitchen and make a new version of photoshop. Nobody wants to hear about you and sucky flash.
Everyone is moving towards standards compliance, which will be HTML5 and will not involve flash.
Any other consideration is daft.
Nobody cares what4 Adobe is doing at this point. Adobe get back in the kitchen and make a new version of photoshop. Nobody wants to hear about you and sucky flash.
Excellent! This means that in about 9 years, maybe 80% of the population will be able to see your website, as opposed to 100%, today.
Just because MS releases IE9 doesn't mean people will update to it!
I'm sure that no one said that anything would really replace Flash.
It's really not about that with the iPad. It's more of a restriction on one device. Which might turn out to be big, or not so big. So what you have to really think about is, how big will the iPad be. If websites that NEED those views daily, like YouTube, see that a large amour of audience are using a mobile device, like the iPad that doesn't support Flash, they'll optimize their website just for that.
Because if you really think of all the money they would be getting just from doing that, any idiot would go for it.
However, you're right, Flash is on pretty much half of the websites out there.
And, I can't say that I don't like it, however, it's not a secret that Flash uses up crazy amount of power, while HTML5 really doesn't need that much. So Adobe should try working on that. I've seen how Skyfire handles Flash, and it's really not that amazing. It really just slows the whole thing down. So you won't get that "smooth" browsing experience that Apple want you to have.
Also, I'm not sure if this could be one of the things, but did anyone ever think that maybe ATT doesn't want people using all that bandwidth, so Apple banned it to sort of cover it up? Because the truth is, Flash needs a lot more data than HTML5. And over a 3G network.. hmm. I don't know about this.
(I'm really sorry if some stuff doesn't make sense. I'm on a lot of medication, and I woke up super early today. So I'm really not sure if I made any mistakes, but I have a headache, so I'm sorry in advance)
It's really not about that with the iPad. It's more of a restriction on one device. Which might turn out to be big, or not so big. So what you have to really think about is, how big will the iPad be. If websites that NEED those views daily, like YouTube, see that a large amour of audience are using a mobile device, like the iPad that doesn't support Flash, they'll optimize their website just for that.
Because if you really think of all the money they would be getting just from doing that, any idiot would go for it.
However, you're right, Flash is on pretty much half of the websites out there.
And, I can't say that I don't like it, however, it's not a secret that Flash uses up crazy amount of power, while HTML5 really doesn't need that much. So Adobe should try working on that. I've seen how Skyfire handles Flash, and it's really not that amazing. It really just slows the whole thing down. So you won't get that "smooth" browsing experience that Apple want you to have.
Also, I'm not sure if this could be one of the things, but did anyone ever think that maybe ATT doesn't want people using all that bandwidth, so Apple banned it to sort of cover it up? Because the truth is, Flash needs a lot more data than HTML5. And over a 3G network.. hmm. I don't know about this.
(I'm really sorry if some stuff doesn't make sense. I'm on a lot of medication, and I woke up super early today. So I'm really not sure if I made any mistakes, but I have a headache, so I'm sorry in advance)
The thing with plug-ins vs codecs is that the layman understands plug-ins. The terminology and concept has now been accepted. When you go to a website and it says you need to download a plug-in to view the content, Joe Average gets it. Codecs are more technical. And yes - you could argue that the same user, when prompted to download a codec would just do so and begin to understand. That just happens to not be the case right now
I think stopping people from Casually copying content is about as good as we'll ever get anyway.
I mean DRM has never ever ever ever stopped anyone from copying content if they were so inclined. I mean eventually all content must be seen or heard by a human. Programs already exist to intercept sound output going to the sound card and video content going to the screen...
Until they implant DRM decoder chips in our brains the whole thing is a pointless exercise IMO.
The biggest reason why I don't see HTML 5 replacing Flash for at least a few years is development software. Sure some of us are geeks that like to write code all day long just to animate a few objects scrolling across the screen but a lot of Flash designers do not want to do that.
As far as I know there is no multimedia development tool in the works to support HTML 5. Designers need a visual tool with keyframes and motion paths. Remember Flash started out as more of a animation tool then a programming tool.
I'm sure we will see a few great HTML 5 sites pop up here and there but do not expect a flood to happen overnight. I see the switch taking at least 2 to 3 years and that is assuming anybody even makes decent HTML 5 development software. Ironically the first company that will is going to be Adobe who may create a new version of Flash that can publish a HTML 5 based webpage with animation. They are already working on that with their FXG format.
At the end of the day it is not going to matter what a bunch of open source happy people want. If the designer community is used to a certain level of productivity tool then they will not switch until there is one. Those of you who do not work in the industry can say what you want about Flash but really who is going to make all this great new HTML 5 content? Are people with no design training or skill set going to be making everything? If that is the case then we really are doomed.
Flash has been around for 12 years when there were no options at all for visual content on the internet. Hate it if you will but those are 12 years where the internet became more of a marketing tool that really helped boost the economy. I hate some of the things Adobe does but I find it odd that people hate them so much after they at least gave us an option to create this sort of content. Where was the alternative for the last 12 years? Where was HTML 5 five years ago? Like it or not the internet is a huge marketing tool and it will continue to be so no matter what technology we have to create animated content to sell products.
As far as I know there is no multimedia development tool in the works to support HTML 5. Designers need a visual tool with keyframes and motion paths. Remember Flash started out as more of a animation tool then a programming tool.
I'm sure we will see a few great HTML 5 sites pop up here and there but do not expect a flood to happen overnight. I see the switch taking at least 2 to 3 years and that is assuming anybody even makes decent HTML 5 development software. Ironically the first company that will is going to be Adobe who may create a new version of Flash that can publish a HTML 5 based webpage with animation. They are already working on that with their FXG format.
At the end of the day it is not going to matter what a bunch of open source happy people want. If the designer community is used to a certain level of productivity tool then they will not switch until there is one. Those of you who do not work in the industry can say what you want about Flash but really who is going to make all this great new HTML 5 content? Are people with no design training or skill set going to be making everything? If that is the case then we really are doomed.
Flash has been around for 12 years when there were no options at all for visual content on the internet. Hate it if you will but those are 12 years where the internet became more of a marketing tool that really helped boost the economy. I hate some of the things Adobe does but I find it odd that people hate them so much after they at least gave us an option to create this sort of content. Where was the alternative for the last 12 years? Where was HTML 5 five years ago? Like it or not the internet is a huge marketing tool and it will continue to be so no matter what technology we have to create animated content to sell products.
L
O
L
you are clearly NOT in the industry or you just know very very little my friend. is this some kind of joke? 2-3 years to replace flash? in need of html5 development software? it seems to me you haven't even looked at html 5 spec yet at all or else you wouldn't be espousing such completely uneducated nonsense.
I don't know what to believe. I guess Apple can just bend over, give us flash and see what happens. For all we know, it may not take a battery hit. It may not make everything slow.
BUT WHAT IF!!!! What if...........................it did.
BUT WHAT IF!!!! What if...........................it did.
I don't know what to believe. I guess Apple can just bend over, give us flash and see what happens. For all we know, it may not take a battery hit. It may not make everything slow.
BUT WHAT IF!!!! What if...........................it did.
Apple can't use the battery excuse for the iPad since it has a 10 hour battery.
Nice. MPEG just announced it will make H.264 royalty free from now til end of 2016, if used for displaying free contents, which includes web browsers.
I read a similar article on CNET. I don't think Flash is going anywhere. The fact that IE8 became the most popular browser not that long ago and it doesn't support HTML5 means that Flash is safe. No website is going to go to HTML5 only if a large secgment of their potential customer base can't see it.
MS could probably change this and support HTML5 when IE9 comes out. But until HTML5 support matures and becomes widely accepted, Flash isn't going anywhere.
Jobs doesn't have to support it if he doesn't want to. I just think not having as an option you can turn on is a mistake.
MS could probably change this and support HTML5 when IE9 comes out. But until HTML5 support matures and becomes widely accepted, Flash isn't going anywhere.
Jobs doesn't have to support it if he doesn't want to. I just think not having as an option you can turn on is a mistake.
That's a myth. You can't steal HTML 5 video any more or any less than you could with flash videos on sites like youtube and most other implementations.