Slashdot Mirror
Six Reasons Why Flash Isn't Going Away
CWmike writes "While Steve Jobs is betting his mobile platform on it, predicting Flash's demise is short-sighted, say industry analysts. 'There are many people who despise Flash, but I'm not sure they'd love the alternative right out of the gate. The open-source world has not blown everyone out of the water with their video work thus far,' Michael Cote, an analyst at RedMon, told Howard Wen. 'Adobe has spent a lot of time optimizing Flash, and I'd wager it'd take some time to get HTML 5 video as awesome.' Here are six factors that give Flash a strong position over HTML 5 and other alternative Web media technologies in the foreseeable future. For starters, While Android has made Flash a wedge issue, Flash is just beginning to show up on multiple mobile device platforms, Wen writes. Ross Rubin, an analyst at NPD Group, reminds us how Flash ushered in video on Web pages, but Craig Barberich, vice president of marketing and business development at Coincident TV, highlights the pervasiveness of Flash on the Web as we know it: 'Everybody is talking about video, but what doesn't necessarily get talked about is a lot of the interactive elements.'"
He wanted to drive a competitor out of the marketplace, which is easy, when you control the marketplace.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Flash was nice when it came out.
but today it's just heavy to load, and compared to what you can do with HTML5 and CSS3 it's only advances is that it's a plug-in so people with old browsers (or browsers that do not mean that there is a point in supporting HTML5/CSS3) can see advance web grafic, and play online browser games
a San Francisco-based company that sells what it calls a "platform-agnostic" framework that allows its clients to create video with interactive elements that can be experienced on either the iOS-based devices or devices that run Flash.
So it works on iOS too. Which means it works without Flash. Chances are it's HTML 5, so it will work in every other modern browser too. Problem solved.
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
Not only is flash going away, but also django, rails, lift.. and all the other web frameworks. Google Native Client already works in chromium and firefox. And in two years, all of that technology will be sucked into a sandboxed binary, running at native speed. What language? any language that has an LLVM backend. "These are exciting times, better get to it"
Wait, I thought SSDs and Flash memory were the future... Oh, you mean Adobe Flash. Headline could have been clearer.
Two words. "Browser Games" I play Deepolis, a very responsive and media-rich game. Can't imagine it implemented in anything other than Flash. It's the same reason many linux people have dual-boot. Games.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Not having your game/animation/whatever running on an iPhone makes you seem like a one-man development team at best.
Sounds like this guy understands that video is not the highest form of content in an interactive medium. I'm not defending flash, but let's face it, the web got big when HTML forms were introduced and information was able to flow both ways. By itself, video is still a one way street.
1. The iPhone and iPad notwithstanding, Flash is beginning to show up on other mobile device platforms.
2. Flash is used for more than just video delivery on the Web.
3. Adobe provides strong tools and support for designers and developers.
4. Flash's content protection/DRM appeals to content producers.
5. Flash remains popular with online advertisers.
6. HTML 5 still has video codec patent issues to work out.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
You want a reason for installing flash blocking plugins.
Ohhh, I get it. But why is God pretending to be the manager of a skating rink?
I think Flash will stick around for at least a few more years. Actionscript has turned into a fairly nice language, and I think it will be a while yet before HTML5+Javascript match its performance and capabilities... at least for substantial web applications and games. Where HTML5 will take over, I hope, is in small 'widgets'... drop down menus, loading bars, all the tiny little flash applications that drive us crazy.
I also think that even once everything Flash does can be recreated in HTML, the more locked-down nature of Flash (at least against casual probing) may make it more tempting to companies streaming video, music, and other such products.
The biggest way to hurt Flash, I think, would be to create a nice opensource development IDE for HTML5, comparable to what Adobe gives us for Flash. If you can get kids and artists to feel comfortable creating simple drag-n-drop animations and games, you'll be legitimate competition.
The open-source world has not blown everyone out of the water with their video work thus far,'
I've never been impressed by a single thing I've seen come out of Adobe.
PDF? Bloated, fragile, and buggy.
Acrobat? Bloated, underfeatured, and clunky.
PhotoShop? Bloated, cumbersome, and twitchy.
Flash? Bloated, fuzzy, and restrictive.
Something as distinctive and ripe for improvement as video delivery is the ideal place for open-source development. Bugs and misfeatures won't survive, while improvements will be implemented continuously. And if the people in charge of the code base won't keep up with user needs, someone will fork it and move on.
Hi, I'm lazy. Could someone explain why Canvas could not be added as a new tag to an existing HTML spec? Why Canvas couldn't be an extension of its own like Flash with self-contained .canvas files loaded through an object tag? And if html5 vs. flash is not all about Canvas, what other new features are involved in html5?
I would also like to know why all videos these days ship inside a Flash wrapper when they could be plain .mpeg files. If there is a problem getting codecs on Windows, how come Flash can get them? For producers, what advantage does Flash have over Realplayer which used to be the tool of choice to deliver incompatible unviewable video using a not widely supported format?
I knew Flash had a certain air of suck about it because of some of the security issues. Then I went to FX's talk at BlackHat US 2010. He released a tool (Blitzableiter http://blitzableiter.recurity.com/), that essentially does all the file validation for SWF files that Adobe's Flash player Completely Fails at. I think that maybe I would feel a lot better about Adobe's position if they didn't still have, after just about 10 years, a giant kludge job that they expect us all to freely install in our browsers.
Spyder
In just the last few months, I have noticed a large number of mainstream news sites ditching flash, as well as automobile companies.
I think flash will live on for a long time, on life support. However its days in the sun are over.
>"The open-source world has not blown everyone out of the water with their video work thus far"
Well, neither has flash. I guess that makes it 0-0 in flash vs open-source world. Not really a bragging right for flash.
The only thing even close to blowing me away with flash video, is the fan on my laptop.
The nice thing about Flash on certain mobile platforms is that you don't need to install it. Skyfire supports it on Android, WinMo, and Blackberry and it is run through the remote renderer. Not so hot for games, but works for regular browsing on websites that utilize flash. Flash isn't going to go anywhere soon, maybe down the road, but not now. So it is nice to have a multiplatform browser that has Flash support despite OS limitations. Too bad Apple won't allow Skyfire on iOS
Ohhh, I get it. But why is God pretending to be the manager of a skating rink?
Because he's done trying to save us from ourselves and needs something to do to fill the time ... and there's nothing good on TV anymore.
....Adobe has spent a lot of time optimizing Flash, ....
Adobe has had years to "optimize Flash" and it is still a resource pig. I'd say given the hugely short amount of time HTML5 has been here it is already way better than Flash was for the same time frame. The bottom line; flash has always sucked and still does.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Adobe has spent a lot of time optimizing Flash, and I'd wager it'd take some time to get HTML 5 video as awesome
So, is this why exactly the same video uses 50+% of my CPU playing in Flash, 20% playing with VLC (ffmpeg), or 20-30% with QuickTime? I hope no one with this guy's definition of optimizing goes near any code that I use. Flash video performance is absolutely terrible, flash vector image drawing is poor, flash compositing is an embarrassment. Flash ActionScript performance is reasonable, but the Tamarin engine found in Flash is also in Mozilla, and it's been a while since FireFox won any JavaScript performance competitions...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
the only reason i am not using ipad is because it do not support flash, which is required by many many web site i surf and work on. tooo bad.
Some of jobs reasoning was good and some was in substantial. Clearly he had some motivation to see it the way he did but that does not make the issies he raised vanish.
One of the most substantial is who gets to set the common denominator. If you innovate a new feature in your device, say haptic response, and flash does not support it, you are sort of at the mercy of adobe.
Conversely, of course is the embrace and extend effect we all know and hate. Internet Explorer defined the web non-standards and held things back. People wrote to the IE specific features and things borke on standards based browsers. Flash currently lets you do more than open standards do particularly in the area of DRM, advertising, paid content and feedback to the server. As a result people who need that will write for it. People for whom it is the easiest way to implement something, say bank security, will use it. It will be has hard to get rid of as IE.
Meanwhile as I said, while extending in some ways it will homogenize the device capabilities an limit innovation in that realm.
Since Apple has a history of bringing new features to devices early and depricating old ones early, they are right to see flash as harmful to them.
But from the point of view of taming a lot of different phone manufactured tweaked versions of Android or Symbian or windows 7, or simply writing cross platform flash is going to win unless the standards catch up soon.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
A lot of people on the internet were fired up about Froyo bringing Flash 10.1 support.
Well I have Froyo now and Flash TOTALLY KILLS performance on pages that use it. Stupid ads.
Homestarrunner.com is still running on flash.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
(It’s been around for ages.)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
4. Flash's content protection/DRM appeals to content producers.
Another difficulty for a challenger, particularly for an open format like HTML 5, is providing the kind of content-protection features and digital rights management that the Flash platform does. Such features could be built into any Web media technology, but Adobe has had time to work out most of the kinks in implementing them into Flash.
And keep in mind Hollywood's interests, says Cote: "They saw what an open format like MP3 did to their music buddies and are not interested in that kind of disruption. People who own movies and TV are going to want as much DRM as possible, and new video formats that don't satisfy those requirements are going to be tough to spread."
So I wonder if this Cote guy is entirely ignorant of public opinion on DRM or if he is just playing the role of a corporate cheerleader using newspeak.
I do not know a single person who knows what DRM is that actually wants it. Same with GMO, not to digress. I see the tactics of promoting their products are about equal, though.
You know there are actually people that have, for years, bought a game at the store and then used the cracked exes to do away with all of the crap that phones home, requires the cd in the drive, etc etc? Noone wants that garbage except the clueless businessmen who are totally out of touch with the public and fooled into actually believing that these companies can come up with something uncrackable which will cause more people to have to buy their product instead of getting a counterfeit elsewhere.
You know what makes sense in a world so senseless? Compromise. Charge less and people will buy more. Treat people like they aren't thieves (by placing such invasive and often counterproductive DRM on it) and they won't steal. Well. Some will, but a lot less than are currently doing it.
Do you remember a few years ago how long it took to get your own VHS of a movie you saw in the theatre? You quite seriously had to wait a year- sometimes longer, before you could own your own copy of a movie you saw on the big screen. Piracy has benefited consumers in that respect-- that now, not even a month after a movie hits the big screen you can get it on DVD. Some people will claim the real reason for that is our advancements in technology (cheaper to mass manufacture DVDs etc)- but I would argue that piracy falls under the category of a technological advancement itself.
"'Adobe has spent a lot of time optimizing Flash, and I'd wager it'd take some time to get HTML 5 video as awesome."
As if every browser team is going to write a set of codecs from scratch. Everyone's going to use either the platform-native media layer or ffmpeg, all of which beat the Flash decoders into a bloody pulp.
if you run 64 bit Linux.
Yes, I don't like flash for it being a huge resource hog and buggy and I am always for open source, but blocking flash right now is like start demolishing the bridge while you are still crossing it. HTML5 is just not ready for prime time yet.
Flash is the savior of the universe. Sending it away would be ungrateful. Flash aaah aaah ahh.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
This is the first time I've seen it nested to produce really large text. That part is new.
Keeping flash off my iPhone was a great decision by Jobs.
How does jobs control the market space.
What's the Android counterpart to the third-generation iPod Touch, an iOS device that has no cellular radio and therefore isn't sold bundled with a 1,500 USD* smartphone service plan? There's the Archos 5, but that's stuck on Android 1.6. If you can't find one, then I'd claim that Mr. Jobs does control the U.S. market space for personal media players that can run smartphone apps.
* Estimated $62.50 per month for 24 months.
Michael Cote, an analyst at RedMon
:)
No wonder he isn't blown out of the water by the open source world -- he's a RedMond drone
they had a blog post a few weeks ago that while html5 is nice for free youtube videos, to control DRM on paid videos you need Flash or a small number of other technologies to deliver them.
i like my iPhone but even i think Steve Jobs is a liar or doing it for business reasons. he has a control fetish and it's the reason why Flash sucks on OS X while performing very nicely on Windows.
"Adobe has spent a lot of time optimizing Flash, and I'd wager it'd take some time to get HTML 5 video as awesome."
I'll take that wager -- how much do you want to bet?
Both are proprietary plug-ins, both kinda suck, but they're everywhere and they aren't going away yet.
There are a couple of easily debunked arguments :
The iPhone and iPad notwithstanding, Flash is beginning to show up on other mobile device platforms.
Exactly 1 single other platform : Android.
All the rest are only promises for some time in the future.
Meanwhile, HTML5 is an open standard meaning that everyone is free to implement it, including opensource implementations like Webkit and Gecko, and closed source like Opera's Presto and... huh... well... maybe IE's engine. Some day. Eventually.
But it's already available today on a huge number of platform and could be implemented on any new platform withouth needing to wait for Adobe to agree to port it.
Flash is used for more than just video delivery on the Web.
You know what ? So are HTML5 / CSS / JavaScript.
Flash's content protection/DRM appeals to content producers.
And is a total joke. RTMPE doesn't even use a secret to encrypt the streams, only some publicly available data and scrambling. Read about it in the Analysis section of RTMPdump's docs.
Even a HTTPS server serving the data stream for the VIDEO HTML5 tag could provide better protection, simply because at least non logged-in users can't get the content.
Flash remains popular with online advertisers.
Sorry ? And that's a good argument how ?
So the only good arguments in favor of Flash are :
- Video codec patents problems (and that's about to change as the "as much close to H264 as possible but with the patented bit left out" WebM format has been introduced by On2 and Google)
- Good tool suite to develop (and that's a really good argument, but could one day change if better tool for HTML5/CSS/Javascript are developed)
That's probably the single only good argument in favour of flash. If developer and artist are given nice tools they will produce content. Flash has the nicest tools, so for now, Flash is preferred by the people who create the content and thus more Flash content is created.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's like seeing colour for the first time!
at what point can we assume our web users will have HTML 5 and CSS3?
This point arrived roughly eleven months ago, at least to the extent that we can assume that our web users who use IE on Windows also have an account with administrator privileges. An admin can install Google Chrome Frame, a browser helper object for IE that embeds Google Chrome in an IE window and uses it on sites that request Chrome in a <meta> element.
... that would imply that he's loosing something if he lost. It's really simple, if he winns, he... eh... well, winns. If he looses, he Keynotes that in his greatness he allowed the poor, suffering Adobe to run Flash on *his* ipad.
(yeah, pad. This will not happen for the phone until Mr. Plow migrates to hell...)
While I agree about how annoying those flash ads are, I also happen to see way more annoying ads (Animated gifs?) on my iphone sans flash than on my home pc with firefox and adblock.
Javascript is the de-facto standard for any DOM-based in-browser application. My question is: Why? Why, if I want to write an in-browser application, are my choices "javascript" or "proprietary plugin"? Why hasn't the open source community come up with something better than type="text/javascript"? Why can't I use type="text/python" or type="text/haskell" or type="text/ruby"?
This signature can save you $400 on your car insurance!
I have an iPad (along with computers running Linux, MacOS X, and Windows). Honestly, the only thing on the web I care about that Flash provides is video. None of the "tools" or "interactivity" matter to consumers. What matters is "someone sent me this video of a dancing cat, and I can't see it". If that problem gets solved, Flash goes away. Only the items dealing with DRM and codecs are really of interest here, and to be honest, the HTML5 codec issue is not much of an issue when Internet Explorer, Safari, and Chrome all solved it. That one comes down to Firefox and free software that unfortunately relegates it into an unenviable position in the marketplace.
The thing about Flash that proponents don't seem to consider is that adding it to touch devices doesn't make interactivity work. I've tried Flash on my N900, which has a crappy touchscreen and Flash support, and most interactivity doesn't work on a touchscreen. There are no mouse-enter, mouse-exit, or mouse-down events in a touch environment.
- Vincit qui patitur.
I would think the use of persistent Flash cookies is another major reason Flash isn't going away. The advertisers love being able to to track in a stealthy way.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Expect the <b> <em> <b> <em> ... to be fixed later today.
Butthead: Heh, heh, you said BM heheheh ... heh heh BM
Beavis: Shut-up, Butthead!
Butthead: heheheh, yah!
Beavis: heh heh heh
Flash is installed on too many devices, doing too many things to truly die. Will it lose popularity and become a quiet, background thing? Yes. In this day and age of computing, nothing ever really dies. OS/2 and AmigaOS live on, because nothing has to die anymore. COBOL, hated by millions of programmers, lives on, despite reportedly better languages for the task of data processing. The computer world has plenty of examples in the realm of hardware. The RS232 serial port will not die! Die, I tell you! Die! I should not have to worry about baud rates and stop bits in this modern era!
Bearded Dragon
I know 10 guys will point me to some proposed standards after saying it but this just happened yesterday, on IE. A security company needed to make absolutely sure that I am really `me` as I order a critical service. I asked if we can hurry, they asked if I have webcam. I thought they wanted me tol take pic of my ID. Nope. They pointed me to a page featuring Flash plugin, Flash asked whether I want site to access my webcam, I said `yes`, guy saw me and said `it is OK now, thanks for your time`.
Now, this has been a debate at Opera blogs too, there isn`t a working, cross browser standard which allows it. For non technical user, installing a standards compliant browser doesn`t really work. Even if there was a chance, there is no browser that does webcam thing.
I am really afraid that HTML5 is not progressing well not just because of technical but political reasons. E.g. some guys may find it uncool. Remember, each GIF you see in 2010 exists because PNG guys didn`t really like the idea of animated images. Or, MNG is there. It isn`t evil MS to blame this time either, MS was one of the quickest to implement PNG once they figured it is a real solution to a real problem.
I have Frash on my iPad now, and it makes one thing clear: Flash assumes you have a keyboard and mouse. Lots of Flash runs under Frash, but I get hung up on things like "press spacebar to continue".
Flash may be here to stay, but the keyboard/mouse assumptions will be a problem moving forward.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
It’s the first time I had seen it nested to produce really large text, too... but <b>, <em>, and <strong> have always made the text bigger (in the D2 discussion system), so it’s not surprising that nesting them makes it even bigger.
FWIW, if you put the last <em> tag inside the <strong> tag, the text is in italics; if the <strong> tags are innermost, it isn’t.
<b><strong><em></em></strong></b>
<b><em><strong></strong></em></b>
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
that you have a choice, and not vendor lock-in?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
PhotoShop? Bloated, cumbersome, and twitchy.
I'll be more inclined to agree with you once GIMP has adjustment layers, a feature of Photoshop since version 4 (that's version 4, not CS4, from November 1996). I have $100 burning a hole in my pocket; can you recommend a way for me to donate this to a bounty to put adjustment layers in GIMP?
How else would we make money?
Try marketing a device that supposedly gives you access to "all the web" and then running into pages that render desktop-size bitmap graphics, hardcode assumption of a single touch mouse as an input device and use your CPU/battery to play back video frame by frame. Worse, 99% of it are interactive ads that is not something user is interested in especially on a 3 inch screen. I would also leave it out. As it is on OSX desktop it's the main cause of Safari crashes and 100% CPU usage.
I wish I could do a Lewis Black-type angry rant using simple text, but why the fuck does Flash deserve to be called "wedge issue"!? Fuck you CWJmike or whatever your nickname is!
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
... QuickTime and RealPlayer? Let's not discount those little gems.
6 reasons why flash isnt going away:
Flash is beginning to show up on other mobile non-iDevice platforms - yeah almost 3 years late, by now I've already adjusted to a flash free world
Flash is used for more than just video delivery - ok, but it still doesnt support touch screen very well, but thats its niche - jibjab videos
Adobe proved strong tools and support for designers and developers - at least in my experience, I would go so far to say strong, I dislike using their programs
DRM - We all hate DRM, it fails and pisses off users who then move to "illegal" downloading so not to deal with DRM
Flash remains popular with advertisers - except it takes up all my computer's resources for those damn ads, so I block them with flashblock
HTML 5 still has codec issues to work out - only legitimate issue
Ross Rubin, an analyst at NPD Group, reminds us how Flash ushered in video on Web pages
No, I would have to remind him that he probably wasn't around when there were plenty of other ways to get video on Web pages. There was the QuickTime plugin for starters. There were plenty of rtsp players, of which RealPlayer was most prominent (but crappy). Flash was not first, not by a long way. If he meant interactive, sure. If he meant with lots of embedded controls, sure. But that's pretty selective, and in the era we're talking about, embedded controls weren't a killer feature.
To be fair, most of the other solutions were pretty lame. Not that Flash isn't lame either - it's just somewhat less lame an attempt. That's its legacy: it's not as shit as RealPlayer.
I was a long time flash hater until i tried Adobe Flex. Maybe i'm missing something, but is there another technology that can provide this level of event-driven, cross browser user interface control for web apps, http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/langref/ ?
Its main strength, vector graphics AND video (which use low bandwidth), are rarely used. Vector graphics can go beyond solid color, cartoony looking images. One can create photo realistic images that scale up with vector. Instead its just used to serve up bandwidth hogging video. What a waste.
Want to have a secure job in graphics? Master making photo realistic images. The bandwidth and storage savings (at a big company, of course) will more than pay your salary.
We'll see how things go, but so far complex stuff in HTML 5 is a real dog. People love to hate on Flash's performance without ever considering if maybe part of the reason is the complexity of what it can do.
Now, how that goes will remain to be seen with the new browsers. They are calling in the graphics hardware to help, and IE9 seems to do a good job. However that still doesn't mean they'll do better than Flash (we'll have to see when they launch) and it requires a system that has the graphics hardware in it, and an OS with the necessary APIs to properly make use of it.
Maybe everything does go HTML eventually, I won't bet either way. However now is way to early to say. I've used HTML 5 in Firefox 3 and when you talk the heavy interactive stuff, performance bites. That means it sure isn't a replacement for Flash now. Saying "Oh but the new browsers will fix it," is just bullshitting. You don't know that. When they launch, we can test them against Flash and see speed comparisons. We can also see what kind of hardware support (desktop and mobile) there is for making HTML 5 fast.
I would also like to know why all videos these days ship inside a Flash wrapper when they could be plain .mpeg files.
First, if they are plain .mpeg files, people can right-click and Save As. The SWF wrapper acts in part as a deterrent to keep honest people honest. It takes more effort to install a download helper extension; doing that shows intent. Second, Flash supports a more efficient seeking (no, not Seaking) mechanism than MP4 files, which can only go back to a keyframe, because Flash has a custom server that actually reencodes the video from the seek point up to the next keyframe.
If there is a problem getting codecs on Windows, how come Flash can get them?
Because Flash Player 10.1 came out in 2010 and Windows XP came out in 2001. Back then, H.264 didn't exist. Windows Vista Home Premium and Windows 7 Home Premium, on the other hand, include the codecs.
The basic problem is that while it's easy to criticise Flash, the available alternatives simply aren't up to the job yet, nor are they going to be any time soon.
If you're a fan of open, portable standards and advocate HTML5 and CSS over Flash, please remember how much of HTML5 and CSS3 isn't actually standardised yet. Most of these clever demo pages are based on non-portable, browser-specific CSS, which looks similar to what might one day go in CSS3 but often varies subtly between rendering engines, so the CSS files are full of almost the same styling written in three not-quite-identical ways. How is this any better than the old IE vs. Netscape problems?
For serving video, obviously one of the most important applications of Flash today, please investigate which AV formats are actually supported by which HTML5-capable browsers, including Apple's iWhatever platforms. Bonus points are awarded for identifying the universally supported formats that are not encumbered by any kind of IP issues. (Hint: There aren't any.)
This whole Flash vs. HTML5 video debate reminds me a lot of people who criticise table-based layouts on web pages. There are many genuine advantages of CSS and many genuine problems with table-based layout. However, the anti-table crowd still look pretty stupid when you're talking about some trivial page layout and they are advocating 50-line CSS solutions that work on most browsers from the past three years in preference to 5-line table-based solutions that work reliably on every browser since forever. They look even more stupid when they "justify" their position based on usability and accessibility concerns that most of them have never experienced, with implications they don't even understand.
These things are all tools. We should use the best tool for each job. Hopefully, in time, new technologies and standards will leave behind less useful tools, and Flash will either evolve to keep up or it will die. For now, if you're going to bash Flash, please make sure you have a demonstrably better alternative to suggest first. Otherwise you're just a guy ranting on a forum.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
'There are many people who despise Flash, but I'm not sure they'd love the alternative right out of the gate.'
My alternative to Flash is .... no Flash. No video at all, in fact. With some obvious exceptions, Flash is used to (attempt) fill half my browser with advertisements. I do not like to be razzle-dazzled when I'm trying to use some companies website. I would be more excited about the possible demise of Flash if I weren't absolutely certain that something else will take its place. And that new thing will bring with it a whole new set of evils.
All that said, I have been a very slow adopter of "new" technologies. Windowing environments were around for a long time before I used them. And I spend most of my work day at a bash command line or in Emacs.
neither Firefox nor Mobile Safari supports WebGL.
Firefox 4 is supported.
Firefox 4 is also beta software. What's the latest estimate from the Mozilla team as to when Firefox 4 will be released on getfirefox.com? Google firefox 4 estimated release date didn't turn anything up.
Some might say Floppy drives are still alive and well.
Flash a-ah
Savior of the Universe
Flash
He save everyone of us
Flash
He's a miracle
Flash
King of the impossible
He's for everyone of us
Stand for everyone of us
He save with a mighty hand
Every man every woman
Every chill-he's a mighty
Flash
Just a man
With a man's courage
Nothing but a man
But he can never fail
No-one but the pure at heart
May find the Golden Grail
(Music by Queen for the movie Flash Gordon)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
To the best of my understanding, this is why flash takes so much CPU processing power to play a video.
Hopefully they will be addressing this now that they're going mobile, and working on a lot of optimizations..
Check out this NetSteam class, which is used to stream videos from the internet or your hard drive:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/net/NetStream.html?allClasses=1
In particular, the bufferLength property reads:
"If any [thing] causes bufferLength to increase more than 600 seconds or the value of bufferTime * 2, whichever is higher, Flash Player flushes the buffer and resets bufferLength to 0"
Translation?
If flash player loads a video to the point that fills it's buffer size, it immediately flushes it's buffer and reloads the video into the buffer, and then it will flush it's buffer and reload the video into it's buffer, and then it will flush it's buffer.. etc
You can see where I am going with this. It's absurd.. but this is what appears to be going on to me.
The alternative is to set a really high buffer time, and make it so the entire video gets loaded into the buffer so the bufferLength is rarely greater than bufferTime*2. but then it will take much longer to begin playing so I doubt you have ever come across any code on the internet that actually does that..
I became aware of this when I was using flash to load a video on my local hard drive and received hundreds of buffer flush events.. one after another, after another, after another.
Having said all that, I think Flash has a lot of things going for it.. It just needs a little work still..
Adobe is obviously trying, but I think the talent is spread too thin. Some of their flash classes are written really well and some are written really poorly.
Otherwise, Flashblock will stop working and all those ads and banners and devil-may-care craziness will be UNSTOPPABLE.
Seriously, how can I strip out HTML5 content that I hate? What plugin can tell what should stay and what should go? Flash is the best thing ever for people who want to enjoy the web, because the Flash elements are easy to detect and discard before rendering.
Because you would have been incapable of making the decision to not install Flash on your own?
I read the article with increasing amazement the farther into it I got. Among the six reasons why OMG we'll all die if we can't keep flash:
The other three, while not quite as egregious, are still not exactly compelling arguments for why web users should be very, very sad if Flash dies. What the hell was the author thinking here?
7. Flex. Many companies are pouring tons of $$ into adobe flex development and research. What i've seen done in flex shits on everything and more that HTML 5 can do.
I'm not going to defend Flash but there is one striking point lacking when this subject is discussed. Jobs isn't selling us an open source alternative to Flash - he's selling us Quicktime under the cover of HTML5.
When video or audio is played back on iDevices it uses Quicktime. All the points Jobs has used against Flash can easily be used against Quicktime.
6. HTML 5 still has video codec patent issues to work out.
Except the preferred video format for Flash nowadays is the same, patent encumbered h.264 that the major players are pushing for HTML5.
The other one is VP6 (is that covered by Google's acquisition of VP8?) even so, that's old.
So that's pretty much a no-score draw.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I heartily agree.
Sent from my jailbroken iPhone
The latest version of the HP Virtual Connect software on their C7000 blade chassis is going to be all flash based. Gotta love the wisdom of using an insecure and performance killing plugin to enterprise level hardware. At least they still have a CLI available.
It's not that Flash isn't still used or won't go away, it's that there is no end of things to do on my iPhone as it is. Every once in a while I run across a web site that requires flash. What do I do? I don't use it. Their loss much more so then mine. I'm not saying there aren't things out there I wish I could use on my iPhone, only that other things weigh more heavily for me, and in any case it just hasn't been a big deal. If it's some site I really want to access I'll send them a message and request that they make their site compatible with iOS and non-Flash. Sometimes they do that. Sometimes they don't. I'll live.
--- What?
I'd rather if you went away, troll.
It seems to me to be pretty awesome as it means my Mac doesn't sit here and boil on my laptop because Flash is chewing away CPU as fast as it can with no apparent reason.
Every other video app on my mac does fine without eating CPU, its just the awesomeness of flash that makes my laptop get hot.
I've yet to come across a reason to use flash over html5 video.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Keeping flassh off the iPad was great; saved me a bunch of money. Nope, can't watch videos I want on it, kids can't play their education websites, done, returned.
-John
Nokia (yeah, remember Nokia?) is working on QTQuick and QML: a Qt/Javascript/CSS fusion language. (Formerly called Kinetic, now called QtQuick, and QML (the JS/CSS language)
It does everything that Flash does and is completely open source. What's more is it is not byte-code interpreted. The QML file is loaded into the QtDeclarativeEngine and evaluates and runs in native code. (Aside from Javascript, but Apple isn't arguing about JavaScript use)
*FULLY* open source, not interpreted (beyond JS), And damn easy to use... It will be a part of Qt 4.7 (next month?)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Ever looked at the sources?
Its mainly the Jake2 code. And switching from Java to HTML5 caused like what? A 90% performance drop?
Enough said...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I think it is hyperbole to say that "Steve Jobs is betting his mobile platform on the demise of Flash". Steve may not like Flash, but if Flash continues to exist it does not spell death for the iPhone/iPad. Those iDevices will continue to exist perfectly fine on their own regardless of whether Flash exists or not.
> 1. The iPhone and iPad notwithstanding, Flash is beginning to show up on other mobile device platforms.
> 2. Flash is used for more than just video delivery on the Web.
> 3. Adobe provides strong tools and support for designers and developers.
> 4. Flash's content protection/DRM appeals to content producers.
> 5. Flash remains popular with online advertisers.
> 6. HTML 5 still has video codec patent issues to work out.
It would be nice, very nice, if /. editors could take the time to write down that kind of "powered abstract" in order to avoid the remorseful feeling of discussing without reading TFA. Maybe the (few) readers can help with a firehose-powered-wiki?
Is this sarcasm?
-Lod
How much did Adobe pay you, to mention an idea that is even stupider than Flash?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
1) Show only the layers you want to effect.
2) New layer from visible
3) apply effect to layer
4) Turn on above/all layers.
5) Repeat these steps in real-time every time the pixels on one of the underlying layers changes. As I understand it, Photoshop does this; GIMP does not. GIMP is like a spreadsheet program that doesn't save your formulas; instead, it saves the value that the formula produces, and this value doesn't update when the original value changes.
...Let's try to get it off Laptops/Desktops as well!
The reason I really dislike is that it kills performance on the Mac side by causing massive overuse of the CPU as others have mentioned. The bitter irony here is that despite what reason #3 may state, the reason that Flash is such a CPU resource hog on the Mac is because Adobe has yet to rewrite it so that it uses the Mac's Core frameworks that are specifically setup to allow developers to use GPU hardware acceleration rather than continually tying up the CPU (which makes it especially ironic that Adobe has yet to grasp this given the history of the development of Quartz)!
As for reason #1, regarding Android use of Flash, that's great, I mean it's not like the platform wasn't fragmented enough, now we get to add yet another potential division between OS versions depending on whether or not the phone hardware supports Flash!
As if the rest of the article wasn't idiotic enough, I love how the writer thinks that Silverlight could still potentially dominate the market, given how many major companies have bailed from using it for the past year!
The sooner HTML5 is finalized as a standard the better as far as I'm concerned....
I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
Got an alternative to Flash games? No? Then it's not going anywhere, period.
Got an alternative to Flash animations (not using it as a video player - actually animating with it). No? Then it's not going anywhere, period.
Yes, Flash-based layouts suck. Yes, using Flash as a video player is lame. Yes, HTML5 should eliminate any reason to do so, and yes, I hope HTML5 kills Flash as a design tool completely. However, unless someone has a viable alternative for flash animations and games - and no, no one takes Silverlight seriously - it will remain a major platform.
I'd say Jobs is shooting himself in the foot by banning all Flash games from his devices, but then the iStore is already incredibly restrictive, so those wanting actual choice are already on the competition anyway.
But not for the obvious reasons. Flash is going the same way as all of Adobe's other software, this is a trend I first noticed about the time of Photoshop 8 (ooh, history brush, I'll pay for that). Adobe has no good programmers left. I don't know if they fired them all just before that time, or they bailed, but ever since then all we've seen out of them is mediocre point upgrades. They're still living off the reputation they built in the mid 90s.
Their shit just plain doesn't work, or is old codebases patched into oblivion, and they either don't want to, or can't hire people talented enough to fix and improve it.
the main reason for flash to exist is called ie6
http://agender.sourceforge.net/ get a free schedule tool
I can't claim to have read them all, but one of the first ones -- Samsung Galaxy -- appears to be a tablet with 2.2. Not sure if it meets the definition of pda.
I guess PDA was supposed to mean "size comparable to an iPod touch", as opposed to "size comparable to an iPad". But the original Galaxy I7500 is officially stuck on 1.6, and listings for its successor on Google Product Search show a $600 price tag.
We griped and groaned on their old MetaLlink/fora during the preview, but they kept shoveling the BS about its wonders, and smothered us. Now we just cope (when the HTML site does not suffice).
Hmmm ... must be some tie-in with their new patent infringement suit over Android against Google, but it escapes me...
RO
SCO didn't die in a day, either. Neither was Rome build in a day...
I'd say their own implementation of the player will use LLVM for accelerated execution of JavaScript to get the necessary performance (they've been contributing to the LLVM project for some time now). Why do I say this? They've submitted a recent (and invalid due to prior art) patent for LLVM IR generation from JavaScript. Don't believe me? See:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100153929
Any JavaScript frontend for generating LLVM IR violates this patent (they even mention LLVM IR explicitly here). Ironically there is so much prior art here its not funny (they've essentially repatented in the old UCSD p-System). This patent would cover the generation of bytecode from JavaScript such as already used by Mozilla in their engines. Smells like a future Mozilla-versus-Apple court case.
So much for Apple being high minded in all this. They are simply attempting to corner another market. Makes Adobe look like the good guy again.
I don't want Flash to go away, I just want to stop using it.
HTML5 video is already working out pretty well, I can embed my own Ogg Theora videos in webpages. I just need YouTube to do something similar. The people who play flash games can keep their legacy software.
Well Microsoft and Netflix, but no one uses Netflix.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
That's like a Best-New-Artist Award, Slashdot edition.
50-line CSS solutions? What have you been reading?
Websites that make extensive uses of table-based lay-outs take much more than just 5 lines, while the equivalent CSS is lighter by comparison.
You mean web developers are not allowed to argue for accessibility for, say, the blind, because they're not blind themselves? Please tell me you're joking.
Spoken like someone who's only used Flash on Windows. I'm pretty sure Mozilla's put in at least the same amount of work optimizing Firefox/HTML5 on Linux as adobe has spent optimizing Flash on Linux. I mean, it's one Saturday afternoon--while watching cruddy movies on the SyFy channel....
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Flash isn't very useful on Linux either. Sometimes Flash will work in Firefox, but more often than not, it won't.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
two reason why flash *should* die:
1. spyware
2. malware
i really don't care if flash has better optimised code right now, and can play videos faster. even ignoring the fact that my CPU and GPU are more than capable of playing any kind of video without breaking a sweat, it's far more important to me that my computer NOT run arbitrary, untrusted code from any web site i visit that either spies on me or tries to install malware like keystroke-loggers or spambots (fortunately, i'm fairly safe from the latter as i run only linux - it's more offensive than dangerous).
i know that i'm taking a stupid risk every time i allow noscript and flashblock to play a flash video, so i try to avoid it...and will keep doing so until HTML5 videos are the standard. data is (mostly) safe[1]. arbitrary executable code is not.
(i really don't think i'm missing much - youtube and the like are, after all, subject to Sturgeon's Law like everything else)
i still think the most appropriate analogy to describe web users running arbitary code from web sites they visit is to say it's like jabbing yourself with every needle on the ground as you walk by a junkie squat - you might enjoy some kind of a high, but you'll certainly get infected. it's why i use NoScript and only allow sites i trust to execute javascript....and give up immediately on sites that don't work at all without js....web sites should degrade gracefully and still work in basic form without scripting, even if it is a more primitive "experience" than what you get if you allow scripts to run.
[1] maliciously created data files could cause a buffer overflow or something in the player - but the code for that is under MY control, not the web sites'. it can be fixed ONCE and protect my computer from all future attempts to exploit the same bug.
Bonus points are awarded for identifying the universally supported formats that are not encumbered by any kind of IP issues. (Hint: There aren't any.)
Let me fix that for you:
Bonus points are awarded for identifying the universally supportable formats that are not encumbered by any kind of IP issues.
Of course there isn't any universally supportED format of any kind. Get past that silly requirement and consider what COULD BE DONE. Formats like Dirac and VP8 do have the potential to be universally supported. The problem is, the decision to support it is made by those who control all the closed platforms. And they aren't usually inclined to make decisions that are good for us.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Native Client is a nice piece of research but it should never have been suggested for widespread use on the web. It ties web content to a particular type of CPU, which is hilariously dumb as far as cross-platform standards go. It's most telling that to begin with it wouldn't even run on 64 bit Intel/AMD boxes. And ARM? An afterthought (although now tackled). Nice fat binaries you get from that, and not to mention you have to compile it for many architectures.
And even more telling is the LLVM version (which is what should have been done in the first place) is called 'Portable Native Client'. Guess that makes the normal one the 'Non-Portable Native Client'? Bonus points for spotting the fact they just re-invented Java Applets, only slimmer.
This article seems to put a lot of weight on advertising as a reason why Flash isn't going away. "Flash is the entrenched technology most used by the online advertising community, and this fact could prevent or at least hinder widespread adoption of an alternative." If the only thing keeping Flash in use was advertising, people would uninstall Flash to get rid of the ads (and Flash ads have +5 Annoying over most other ad formats), and the advertisers would be forced to migrate.
If Apple had supported Flash on the Touch or Pad, there would have been no choice. YouTube, for instance, would have had no rationale to support Flash-less users. While almost any technology - Flash included - is eventually superseded, Apple's action makes the day I don't need Flash to watch most video, or that NetFlix pop-behinds don't peg my CPU, that much closer. It could be that the alternative will suck even more CPU cycles, but at the moment that doesn't seem likely.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Having used flash on the HTC Desire and Nexus One on a regular basis, that's bollocks. Flash performs well on those platforms. Any slowness experienced is due to crappy 3G networks and typically goes away after switching to Wifi.
"User Experience" is also bollocks. It's a marketing buzzword that can be changed to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. User Experience is subjective and based on perception so it cannot effectively be "designed" or "evolved" as each individual user has a different user experience. Apple marketing likes using this term because it is so non-specific that if a user has a different experience they can blame the entire thing on the user.
Apple banning flash entirely about control. Control over the application ecosystem and ensuring that Apple users are still beholden to Apple's supply chain.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
one falsehood in your post is enough to make the entire thing hogwash
Though I see this tried often, it just isn't true. Regardless of the merit of the specific post in question, you can't invalidate a post of any scope by invalidating a marginal point.
Except they cant even decide on a video codec, let alone other standards.
HTML is unfinished and Apple has already decided to implement a non-standard version of HTML 5.
Across multiple OS's, CPU Arch's and browsers.
Flash: Code once, work everywhere.
HTML5: Code several times for compatibility, someone ends up using a browser that is not compatible.
Content protection that appeals to content producers, yet is a complete joke. You see this as a bad thing(TM).
Truly your hate/fanboyism has blinded you.
Because it's easy to block. Flash is just a conduit here, not the motivation. If flash dies do you honestly think that advertisers will give up on annoying ads without Flash? Perhaps they'll just find a new means of delivering punch the monkey ads, perhaps over HTML5. Point in case.
- Enormous amount of content already in flash (why should they pay to have it changed because Steve says flash is the devil).
- Excellent tools to develop in.
- Excellent tools to develop in (this really is worth mentioning twice).
- It's already here, no waiting for IEEE to finish the spec or for Apple/MS to finish twisting it into something unusable.
- Apple or MS cant be "selective" about which functions they enable on their browsers.
- One application is consistent on all platforms, all browsers and all processor architectures.
- Already has all the funtionality HTML promises.
Sorry but your rant is utter bollocks. Nice work in leaving out the most important things that have made flash popular, the fact that it's here and is consistent on all platforms.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
...because it lacks liquor stores and casinos. right?
The goal is to make HTML5 just as capable as Flash, and as a freely available open standard.
http://badgerbadgerbadger.com/
ACTUAL SIZE!!!
Other than all the performance debates...it's hard to collect 30% of nothing when a flash game is played. No Flash no free web games. So there was a couple of reasons and one was monetary.
I've been drinking and I've got karma to burn, so...
I like flash.
I don't like it when it's misused, and I think it's a pretty awful idea for most websites to use flash elements. Yet it has its uses, chiefly among them being web cartoons and web games.
The barrier for entry is low, so there's a lot of junk out there, but the good stuff tends to rise to the top. A great example is the game N, the quirky 2D gold-grabbing platformer with the fun physics and tricky, exacting level design. They now have game deals on more traditional media, but this one would never have got off the ground if it weren't for the ubiquity of Flash. On the animation side, the same can be said for Strong Bad.
I've started dabbling in game design again, and this time around I'm using ActionScript along with the FlashPunk framework. The thing that's always kept me from completing things in the past was having an engine and language that both lived at a level sufficient to let me do what I wanted without making me do the tedious low-level work. PyGame took too long to do all but the simplest animation, and while Torque GameBuilder's dev environment was very good its scripting language was no fun to work with. Neither had the advantage of being instantly playable over the web, which is a huge deal when you're trying out a game you've never heard of. The ActionScript language is essentially JavaScript that has access to Flash's libraries, so it is both familiar and quite powerful to work with, while FlashPunk has a good basic, extensible framework for game creation that lets me work at a higher level but doesn't get in my way. Flex Builder's power as an IDE is also worth noting.
Most of the advantages to using Flash are due to its existing momentum. if HTML5 gets enough traction to have people write good content-creation tools for it, I'll certainly give it a shot. Right now, though, I'm very happy with Flash.
Your brain is not a computer.
I know I'm asking for a lot here, but could people who state "Flash sucks" or "Flash runs like a pig" try and quantify which verison and what you were running it on?
I've found Flash 10.1 to be extremely good. I haven't seen Flash running on Android 2.2 yet, so don't want to comment, but from articles on the matter, the main thing that people are saying is that it is the first true "internet in your pocket" experience but it needs a decent phone and even then, you need a decent programmer who has written mobile friendly code.
This reminds me of a Software Team lead who stated that a particular product was awful. After a bit of questioning, the last time he had used the product was 4 versions ago. It's a horrendous closed mentality to have.
Personally Adobe really got to grips with the failings of Flash and 10.1 is their answer.
I completely agree that flash has already copious amount of content produced with it.
I also agree that the presence of excellent tools is one of the most critical point (which also explains *why* the content was produced).
But...
One application is consistent on all platforms, all browsers and all processor architectures.
Which currently means :
- On 32bits windows (not even a real 64 bits implementation - you have to run IE in 32bits).
- On Mac OS X
- A half-assed Linux version which is 32bits only (giving rise to 32-to-64 wrappers. Until the 64 bits alpha version reappears) and is completely buggy (I strongly suspect that flash was the biggest reason for Mozilla to start the Electrolysis project, to have flash crash on its own without taking the whole browser with it) and has no hardware acceleration support yet (a VDPAU support, so nVidia only, is promised for the next revision)
All the above exclusively on 32bits x86 architecture only.
- And a soon-to-be released Android version.
There are a couple of other implementations, but they are all completely out-dated (Maemo has a flash player, which only supports up to version 7)
That's not a lot of different permutation of CPUs, GPUs, OSes and browser.
If you want to use it on anything more exotic (some newer ARM based net book for exemple) you're out of luck.
Luckily there are some open source implementation, but currently they are mostly playing catchup.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Flash isn't going away. It is the primary tool for highly interactive software simulation and training development. It's also the de facto standard output for rapid e-learning development tools. People without any programming skills can turn screen captures into interactive training. The tools that do this prefer .swf output because the tweening allows for small file sizes and realistic simulation of screen activity (without requiring full motion video). It also allows for customization after the fact in Flash.
The other reason it isn't going away is because it will most likely produce HTML5 compliant output in future versions.
You can use Flash for non-web delivered content. That's another reason that the death of Flash is conflated. People don't understand all of its uses. It's not just for making dumb games, non-compliant web pages, and bad adverts. It's also used for sophisticated simulations and software training, for example, usually delivered in a training package of stand alone content via a learning management system.
The basic problem is that while it's easy to criticise Flash, the available alternatives simply aren't up to the job yet, nor are they going to be any time soon.
Depends what you mean by "soon". I predict less than five years until Flash is no longer widely used except as fallback or for niche features.
If you're a fan of open, portable standards and advocate HTML5 and CSS over Flash, please remember how much of HTML5 and CSS3 isn't actually standardised yet. Most of these clever demo pages are based on non-portable, browser-specific CSS, which looks similar to what might one day go in CSS3 but often varies subtly between rendering engines, so the CSS files are full of almost the same styling written in three not-quite-identical ways.
Really? Give examples of this, please. In CSS you sometimes have to state the same exact rule three times or more, but it's the same rule with the same syntax in all common cases I can think of except gradients. HTML5 video/canvas generally don't require many cross-browser hacks. You just have to stick to what all browsers have implemented. Libraries like jQuery can also abstract away browser differences for you.
In fact, this stuff is generally standardized already. The problem is it's not always implemented, and when it is, often it's only in newer browsers. So HTML5 will take time to win, but it will win, at least for the common cases. Plugins might always be needed for special functionality that's too narrow to standardize, but not for basic video viewing, browser games, etc.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
Wow, where do I even start?
Apple has given absolutely no indication that they will cripple their implementation of HTML5 to prevent people from making HTML5 apps that compete with their App Store. They have probably the most standards compliant mobile browser right now (point any iPhone to the acid3 test, for example).
Dude, you can't make something true by wishing for it to be true.
Sorry, but I live in the real world. The only things I am interested in when making a decision about technology today are those things that can be reasonably expected or guaranteed as of today. I will worry about hypothetical futures tomorrow, when Linux is on the desktop, Apple have bowed to public pressure and made the iPhone an open platform, the RIAA has realised that on-line sales could make them a lot of money and abandoned DRM, and the W3C can manage to standardise something as important as HTML and CSS in less than the average human lifetime.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Depends what you mean by "soon". I predict less than five years until...
You may well be right. I hope you are. However, five years is an eternity in Internet time. Some people become multimillionaires in less time. Other people try two or three different failed start-ups.
To check your perspective, please try to identify any top tier web-based business today that is still using the same core technologies as it was five years ago. For reference, in mid-2005, Firefox was a year old, Safari was on version 2, IE6 was still the latest release, and Chrome wasn't even a twinkle in Sergey's and Larry's eyes. Tim O'Reilly had just popularised the term "Web 2.0", and YouTube had only just been invented. Neither major server-side frameworks like Ruby on Rails and CodeIgniter nor major client-side frameworks like jQuery had been released yet, and cloud hosting platforms like AWS didn't exist (for the general public, at least).
Really? Give examples of this, please. In CSS you sometimes have to state the same exact rule three times or more, but it's the same rule with the same syntax in all common cases I can think of except gradients.
I suspect gradients are indeed the main obvious example where the syntax differs significantly between browsers. If we're talking more generally about features that don't have effective cross-browser support yet, obviously neither IE nor Opera support much CSS3 stuff in their latest versions. There are several more features like animations that are only supported to any useful extent in Webkit browsers, so there aren't enough competing implementations to allow for different versions of CSS in your file. :-)
In fact, this stuff is generally standardized already. The problem is it's not always implemented
Actually, no CSS3 module has yet become a W3C Recommendation.
In any case, for real projects rather than exploratory or for-fun pages, it is what's implemented that counts. There's no rule that we can't change a project to use a better technology later if one is available, but it's pretty hard to run a successful project using a better technology that most users don't have yet.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Websites that make extensive uses of table-based lay-outs take much more than just 5 lines, while the equivalent CSS is lighter by comparison.
OK, let's try a few simple examples. Here's one from a web app I was working on yesterday: I want to display a short, plain text message in some sort of notification or dialog area, with an icon next to it. The icon should be a fixed horizontal distance from the text, and the whole icon+message should be centred within the containing block, with the text lines wrapping if necessary. For your reference, here is some quick and dirty HTML using a table-based layout, which nevertheless already works in every browser I have here, including the older ones I only test for backward compatibility these days:
<table><tr>
<td><!-- Icon img goes here --></td>
<td><!-- Text goes here --></td>
</tr></table>
Just add a line or two of CSS to set the spacing you want. What combination of semantic HTML and CSS, which works on all major browsers and regardless of its context in the overall page layout, would you propose as an alternative? (If you're about to suggest something involving a float and some negative margins, please make sure it still works across the board when the containing block of the message is itself part of an arbitrary layout, possibly constructed using floats.)
Of course, there are numerous more global page layouts that still require absurd amounts of effort in the CSS to get a basic result. Anything involving aligning content at the bottom of a multi-column layout (within a column, not in a footer) is probably a good example.
You mean web developers are not allowed to argue for accessibility for, say, the blind, because they're not blind themselves?
No, I mean that web developers who are advocating CSS over table layouts frequently justify this on the grounds of accessibility, but I'd bet good money that most of them have never heard a single page read aloud by a screen reader, let alone done actual usability testing with a partially sighted subject. You can tell this from the way they use perfectly standards-compliant HTML and CSS to render a page in a beautiful combination of colours that will sound fine when read by a screen reader... but be utterly unreadable to a significant proportion of the population with the wrong form of colour blindness.
Finally, an announcement for the knee-jerk troll moderators: Please note that at no point in this post nor the one before it have I advocated any of (a) using table-based layouts routinely in production web sites, (b) not using CSS layouts in production web sites, or (c) building production web sites that do not cater properly for their target audience, including any members of that audience with special accessibility requirements. I am merely saying that dogmatic assumption that CSS is better than table layout is a lot like dogmatic assumption that HTML5 video is better than Flash: it may well be true in any given case, but "It's just better, because." is not a strong argument.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You may well be right. I hope you are. However, five years is an eternity in Internet time.
True. But I'm just talking about when Flash is practically extinct. It's already on the way down, and HTML5 is already close to an acceptable replacement for some basic use-cases. I'd bet on top-tier video sites switching to HTML5 by default on some platforms in less than two years (they already support HTML5 as an option). Obviously there will be no massive change in the next six months – that's only practical when the client and server are controlled by the same party.
To check your perspective, please try to identify any top tier web-based business today that is still using the same core technologies as it was five years ago.
I'm not familiar with many top-tier websites, but the one I am familiar with is Wikipedia. That still runs on MediaWiki on top of LAMP behind Squid, pretty much the same as five years ago, although with a number of fairly significant improvements across the board. Most of the others are so secretive that it's hard to say, unless the site actually didn't exist five years ago. Regardless, your general point is correct.
Actually, no CSS3 module has yet become a W3C Recommendation.
No, but they're still standardized. Standardization is just when the exact way to do something is written down in a central and agreed-upon place. Editor's Drafts are standards. You can even have standards that aren't written down in any special place at all, like rel="nofollow". You might call some of these de facto standards rather than proper "official" standards, but they're still standards. To reach W3C Recommendation, every single feature of a document (which is often very large) must have two independent implementations and often a full test suite. Most of the individual features may well have been standardized years before.
In any case, for real projects rather than exploratory or for-fun pages, it is what's implemented that counts. There's no rule that we can't change a project to use a better technology later if one is available, but it's pretty hard to run a successful project using a better technology that most users don't have yet.
Yep, sure. It's standardized, but as I said, it's not implemented. The distinction is important, since a lot of random Slashdotters seem to blame the W3C for slow standards progress. In fact, in core web technologies like CSS and HTML5, it's the implementers who are usually the bottleneck, since writing a spec is typically quicker than coding the feature.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
There are several ways to solve your example:
Solution 1 and 4 present the additional problem that you can't center something of which the width isn't known. If it's allowed to set a width, no problem. Otherwise two extra containers are needed along with some float rules to fake it.
Now for my example. Years ago I took this page (warning: adult site, may not be work-safe, but when I visited it to get the link it was safe), and re-created it into . It's a good example of a page that makes extensive use of tables for its lay-out, which I successfully converted to show it could be done without hacks.
Do they have to? At least they're making an effort instead of clinging to web design tropes from 1998 that would leave their pages even worse off. I think many developers just need more experience with the craft. I know I'm still learning things despite having a good grasp of it. There are so many things to keep track of while trying to make a page semantically rich.
Whoops, I made a HTML syntax error and the link to my page got munched.
stfu mate - not everyone is a geek. why can't people get that simple fact????
Otherwise two extra containers are needed along with some float rules to fake it.
Exactly. And now your "semantic" HTML is full of extra divs that are there entirely to support the layout, along with a whole bunch of float rules that again aren't really there to float content but because it's still the only way to get sensible column layouts in CSS.
I note in passing that a layout using such extra containers and floats, containing within it another layout using floats, that works correctly across all modern browsers, is quite a rare beast.
Now for my example.
Forgive me for skipping the NSFW link, but in any case, I don't dispute that using CSS for layout is often the right approach. I am merely saying it is not "always the right approach, because".
Do they have to?
Yes, if they want to start criticising others on accessibility grounds, I think they should actually know something about accessibility. IMNSHO, that knowledge should come from empirical data and real world experience, not dogmatic adherence to the rules people who are probably mostly not disabled posted on a blog too many.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
> HTML 5
It's "HTML5".
> And HTML 5 enables users to play video right in a Web browser instead
> of requiring a plug-in, as Flash does. But predicting Flash's demise
> is short-sighted
Never mind the demise of Flash, consider the demise of Web browser plug-ins. They were always supposed to be an optional element in a Web page because they're not universal, but Macromedia/Adobe and Flash developers abused that. Now, plug-ins are totally and completely impractical. You can't expect people to update their phone's Flash plug-in 5 times a year. The security implications of that alone are ridiculous. But the multiple platform implications are worse: Flash barely even runs on ARM yet, 3 years after the Web jumped firmly onto ARM with both feet.
> "Adobe has spent a lot of time optimizing Flash, and I'd wager it'd take some time
> to get HTML 5 video as awesome."
This actually makes me want to find the guy that said this and force him to compare Flash on a netbook to HTML5 on an iPad. The iPad has much less CPU power, yet the video runs smoothly at high qualities and is a much, much better experience. Flash has always been a pig, it has never been optimized. Nobody every describes the Flash video experience as "awesome" that is ridiculous. However the video experience on iPad has been lauded in every possible way. The guy has no idea what he is talking about.
> The iPhone and iPad notwithstanding, Flash is beginning to show up on other
> mobile device platforms.
Flash has been beginning to show up for some years now. HTML5 has been on all mobile platforms that are currently under active development for 2-3 years now. All of those devices have built-in hardware video players, equivalent to a next-generation DVD player that uses the Internet or solid-state storage instead of an optical disc. Most of the Web's video no longer requires Flash. Even if you see it in Flash on your PC, it's running as HTML5 on iPad and other mobiles. Even where it is still Flash-only, there is already an upgrade path in place because the underlying platform is adding HTML5.
> 2. Flash is used for more than just video delivery on the Web.
Over 90% of Flash applications are video players. Most of the rest can be redone in HTML5. The 1-2% that cannot do not justify the installation of a proprietary software layer with questionable security on billions of devices. Those apps can be redone as native apps, or exist as PC-only apps until technologies like WebGL are further advanced.
> Flash as a video solution was popularized with the rise of YouTube
In 2005 ... but by 2007, YouTube was running directly on mobiles and set-top boxes and iPods and other consumer electronics gear in native H.264.
> and [Flash] is also used by Hulu
Flash-based Hulu is not licensed for and does not run on mobiles, even if they have Flash. The Hulu that runs on mobiles is H.264. Hulu runs on iPad and iPhone right now, even though they don't have Flash. Hulu is actually a poster child for Flash not being required.
> [YouTube and Hulu] -- the top two video sites on the Web
Neither of which requires Flash. Both of which run better without it.
> Everybody is talking about video, but what doesn't necessarily get talked
> about is a lot of the interactive elements
That is true of both Flash and HTML5. HTML5 also has much, much more interactivity than previous HTML specifications.
> Adobe provides strong tools and support for designers and developers.
Duh. Adobe has been killing themselves and their apps with Flash. CS4 had Flash in its user interface, but notice that in CS5 *by popular demand* the user has a preference to show the panels with Flash or with WebKit (HTML5!) so even in Adobe's apps Flash is being replaced by HTML5.
But Adobe support is irrelevant. Of course Adobe supports its proprietary platform! But that platform requires *all* other platform vendors to be Adobe partners and
cross-platform API? That's the goal.
So it's possible to create the standard but only if it is owned by Adobe?
Even if the HTML5/CSS3 features were proprietary to browsers, the sane vendors have de-facto standards for such proprietary extensions. And they'll be standards one day, even if slightly different. Still better than the situation with flash. As for video, there are two choices now: use WebM or pay for H.264. That's good enough.
Even if the HTML5/CSS3 features were proprietary to browsers, the sane vendors have de-facto standards for such proprietary extensions. And they'll be standards one day, even if slightly different.
Perhaps. If and when that day comes, HTML5 and CSS3 will be better choices than they are today.
As for video, there are two choices now: use WebM or pay for H.264. That's good enough.
That's a matter of opinion. For now, WebM is not widely supported in mainstream browsers: Opera has it, but it's only in testing versions of the major Gecko and Webkit browsers, and of course if you need IE or mobile browsers (both very big markets for on-line video) you're out of luck. As for H.264, it's an encumbered format with licensing costs, which automatically limits its usefulness to projects that can accept those limitations.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
They are *our* devices, but people like you are giving Apple a free pass in what is increasingly becoming the licensing of hardware. How this does not horrify thoughtless fanboys is beyond me.
What about we are given some control over them? After all people are shelling $400, $500, $600, whatever silly amount of money for them, so if I want Flash, porn, or whatever else crosses Saint Jobs the Pure I am not subjected to his mores, likes, dislikes or paranoias.
Jobs could make you agree with some disclaimer about you being on your own if you install Flash, could provide an adult screening feature and force applications to comply with a certification scheme, they could do many things to deliver what they claim they want to deliver without abrogating the role of ultimate advisor about what happens in your own hardware.
I don't own Apple products as a matter of principle, I think it is high time that some people questioned the wisdom of allowing a company to dictate what is good and what is bad for you, specially since one never asked them to make those decisions in our behalf in the first place....
What does any of your rant have to do with the topic at hand?
div elements have no semantic meaning, and it's perfectly okay to include them to provide style hooks. A page using this trick is still using semantic HTML.
If you're trying to make a page that is standards compliant and semantically rich, it is the only approach.
My DROID cost me $100, and the extra cost versus the dumb phone it replaced was $30/month.
How much were you paying per month for your dumb phone? I pay $7 per month to Virgin Mobile for mine.
If I didn't want the network, I'd consider it expensive.
I have a network just about whenever I'm seated in a building, be it work, home, or a restaurant. It's called Wi-Fi. Perhaps a cellular data plan might be more useful to people who take long road trips, but then dropping down to EDGE or (worse) down to 0 bars puts you in the same position as me.