According to figures I saw recently, Android is doing to the iPhone what Windows did to the Mac, so will Apple really hold out against Flash? It is such an Achille's Heel.
If they don't, will HTML5 become less important?
Paul
Printable View
According to figures I saw recently, Android is doing to the iPhone what Windows did to the Mac, so will Apple really hold out against Flash? It is such an Achille's Heel.
If they don't, will HTML5 become less important?
Paul
This is the best opinion I've yet seen on the subject.
http://www.rblank.com/2011/10/20/wha...ml5-and-flash/
Flash is no threat to iOS devices yet. Their sales will have to drop significantly in order for it be considered. Given the right situation, apple will definitely buckle.
Is this the only subject that gets continual play in the lounge?
lalala ....html5 is not so important.
<edit>hmmm, actually I mean that it is not a threat to SWF development or use. It is important.</edit>
The best thing it has right now is the simplification of doctype.
instead of something like this -
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
...you can now use -
<!DOCTYPE html>
sweet ;)
@Frets, its an important issue imo. It's worth regular discussion while it is.
I've recently become an advocate of flash ubiquity but more due to preferring to work in a sane industry than not liking other runtimes. If flash usage takes a major hit due to this it will be a dark moment in the story of an otherwise steadily progressive technology.
HTML5 is important and will become more so, regardless of whether the iOS on i-devices will or won't support SWF.
Another good thing (apart from simplification of DOCTYPE) is that the <embed> tag is finally official in html 5, so you will be able to use -
<embed src="helloworld.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
...and most browsers will see it if there is a flash player available.
I think people should spend some time reading up on html 5. If and when it is accepted as the current standard it will make creating HTML pages simpler and there should be little reason why it is not backwards compatible with existing sites ...even that scary <marquee> tag will work in an html5 document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
...and from that document -Quote:
An HTML5 (text/html) browser will be flexible in handling incorrect syntax. HTML5 is designed so that old browsers can safely ignore new HTML5 constructs. In contrast to HTML 4.01, the HTML5 specification gives detailed rules for lexing and parsing, with the intent that different compliant browsers will produce the same result in the case of incorrect syntax.[45] Although HTML5 now defines a consistent behavior for "tag soup" documents, those documents are not regarded as conforming to the HTML5 standard.
I have had a little time recently to start exploring html5 and think it is a big step forward.Quote:
According to a report released on 30 September 2011, 34% of the world's top 100 Web sites were using HTML5 - the adaptation led by search engines and social networks.
david
@JQ
With the advancement of technologies ram, cpu, connection speeds is the runtime so far out of whack?
@DP, I'm not down playing the importance of HTML5. It's a nice step forward but it's a short list of things it can do that you couldn't before. My issue is not with the spec. Writing html has never been all that difficult. It's the implementation mine field that puts a huge asterisk on the phrase "replacement for flash". It's not wrong to like html5, it's entirely wrong to suggest flash is no longer needed.
@Frets, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is the flash runtime out of whack? Almost no technology has increased in speed and features in as much time as the flash player has. Is it multi-threaded? No. Yet its still being referred to as the game console of the web. <Canvas> features are ancient by comparison. It can be argued that its a young technology, but that would be a stupid argument. Was blu-ray less impressive than DVD? Was the PS3 slower than the PS2? New tech is supposed to be better on day zero. If the excuse is that <canvas> was not meant to be compared to flash, you agree that locking out flash is a bad idea.
For me it's not about the technical merits of either but the real world uses to which people put them. We're under pressure from some customers to support HTML5 but I believe it is purely to allow output to iPad and it becomes redundant if the iPad succumbs to pressure to support Flash.
iPad sales may be holding up but they are being outstripped by sales of Android devices which means Apple has invented a market in which it will become a niche player not a market leader. And we all know where that got them last time Steve Jobs wasn't around.
@Frets - IMO it is always worth discussing where your livelihood might go in future and, in particular, thought the significant change at Apple in recent weeks has made reconsideration of this subject very pertinent.
We will see, apple device sales are through the roof... again. There is zero pressure to include flash at this point. It may never be. What's important to me is that cost effective contracts are common. To date, if my experience is any kind of sample, they're not.
I give an estimate by saying so many hours to build feature x and so many more to build feature y. But the reality usually ends up including a lot of browser x and mobile device y fixes. Clients shouldn't have to pay for that and developers shouldn't have to work for free.
I like the cut of this guys jib. http://daringnoballs.net/
@joel re:I totally agree. I do not think it will ever come close to being a 'replacement'.Quote:
It's the implementation mine field that puts a huge asterisk on the phrase "replacement for flash". It's not wrong to like html5, it's entirely wrong to suggest flash is no longer needed.
I think HTML5 is important for a few reasons, but I do not think it makes SWF less important for developers. Anyone who has looked at the code behind very basic stlye and javascript driven animation, and seen how huge and clunky it is, will realise that there are possibly many things that can be done simply with Flash that will never be possible without it. When you see tablet and smartphone companies advertising thier product in part by saying "supports Flash" you know that consumer demand will eventually drag Apple back into the fold.
I think only Apple iOS (used in just a couple of the plethora of devices available to the consumer) does not support SWF. I also think Apple will change their stance eventually and join with Adobe in the development of a flash player for their iOS.
Some reasons why I like what I see of HTML5...
1) HTML5 has the support of major browser engines, both current and in planning. Webkit (Safari, Google Chrome, Android), Presto (Opera, Opera mobile), Gecko (all Mozilla software including Firefox) ...all have fairly robust support already, and even IE9 seems to have much more support for emerging standards than ever before with older browser versions. Dominant browser companies such as Apple, Google and Microsoft have all committed support for the development and presentation of HTML5.
I expect/suspect that by 2014, when HTML5 is due to become the official web standard recommendation, all major browsers, including mobile devices, will be able to present a web page that looks the same on any of them.
2) It has a much richer feature set than earlier versions of HTML and they will have wide support.
3) It has simplified and standardised HTML, and it is designed to be backwards compatible. Pages developed using HTML4 or XHTML or some other flavour of older code should still render as you expect without major re-writes.
No reason to be worried about the death of SWF. The announcement would not only be premature, but very likely wrong.
I was among the first to start preaching flash responsibility. I had started out making all flash websites like many others and realized that most things, absolutely should NOT be done in flash. HTML5 allows even more things that used to be only possible in flash. I'm happy about that. Still there are things being done with loads and loads of javascript that are just silly. It's childish.
Here's what I find ironic. My major retreat from a "flash for everything" mentality was upon the realization of search engine optimization, disability compliance and their inherent impossibilities in flash. Sure you can fake both to some degree but we're talking about what's sane here. Stat tracking is arguably the single biggest thing that opposed flash's threat to take over the web. Why, because the free media with paid advertising model works. It worked for radio, worked for tv and now it works on the web. The vast majority of todays bandwidth is used to stream video and advertisers particularly like the granular data collected from pre-roll and mid-roll ads. I can't for the life of me understand how html5's video tag's lack of an ability to do so didn't stop the movement in its tracks.
Literally a masterpiece. Sums up and puts better all of my thoughts on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
apparently the bio suggests that locking out flash was simply a dick move by steve.
http://firstarkansasnews.net/2011/10...light-on-myth/
Had a feeling that might be the case :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
But you make some very good points about search engine optimization and disability access but I think both could be fairly simply to resolve with multi-touch, zoom and relative scaling of objects independently.
But I'm no expert here. I just know our customers are looking at mobile eLearning solutions and will buy Android if that makes the development easier/cheaper through Flash. And that kind of thing will add significant commercial pressure.