# HTML5 vs. Flash



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 5, 2010)

I talked to a Apple tech this past week and I asked him "Why isn't Apple supporting Flash in their new products (ipad / iphone). He replied "Apple isn't bothering with Flash or Silverlight because its old tech and will be replaced with HTML5 very soon."

Now this may be true but by the time the web switches over to HTML5 those very same Apple devices will be out of date IMO.

With all that being said what do you guys think? Do you think HTML5 will replace (RIA) technologies like Flash? Or do you think they will evolve and not including them in your browser is a bad move.

Just to be clear this is NOT a Apple bashing thread. I just would like to hear back from the community on the basic question. HTML5 vs. apps like Flash.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 5, 2010)

I must admit im not a big fan of flash as it has great habit of crashing my browser and also i think its a resouce hog. If HTML5 can improve on that then im all for it.

Also seen this earlier MailMan.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 5, 2010)

Its funny because I have never had an issue with Flash. Honestly I thought Apple was banning flash because of whole Adobe not supprting 64-bit on OSX in CS4 and Lightroom vs Photoshop.


----------



## Oliver_FF (Jun 6, 2010)

Flash was developed a long time ago when HTML, Javascript and CSS were basic, slow and hard to use. Nowadays you can get the same functionality by using the technologies supported straight out of a web browser instead of having to rely on a third party plugin and development suite. What more needs to be said? 

Do a comparison yourself - two gaming websites one uses HTML one uses Flash.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/       (HTML top banner)
http://uk.gamespot.com/  (Flash top banner)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 6, 2010)

Oliver_FF said:


> Flash was developed a long time ago when HTML, Javascript and CSS were basic, slow and hard to use. Nowadays you can get the same functionality by using the technologies supported straight out of a web browser instead of having to rely on a third party plugin and development suite. What more needs to be said?
> 
> Do a comparison yourself - two gaming websites one uses HTML one uses Flash.
> http://uk.pc.ign.com/       (HTML top banner)
> http://uk.gamespot.com/  (Flash top banner)



Um the flash is much nicer?


----------



## Oliver_FF (Jun 6, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Um the flash is much nicer?



1. if I roll my mouse up and down over the news items my CPU usage hits 100%...
2. you can't "open in new tab" any interesting articles
3. the HTML page will load and work on -any- computer/device with a web browser


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 6, 2010)

Oliver_FF said:


> 1. if I roll my mouse up and down over the news items my CPU usage hits 100%...
> 2. you can't "open in new tab" any interesting articles
> 3. the HTML page will load and work on -any- computer/device with a web browser



Mine doesnt go past 10%.


----------



## Oliver_FF (Jun 6, 2010)

thats because whilst Flash is 'open' it is Adobe who develop the browser plugins - the Linux plugin is horribly inefficient. if you had a mobile device and wanted guarantee's that the end user experience is going to be awesome would you really want dependence on a third party? don't forget the efficiency of the plugin is going to directly impact things like battery life!


----------



## lemode (Jun 6, 2010)

i spent the better part of a decade learning flash and its outdated...lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2010)

There was a falling out between Adobe (maker of Flash) and Apple.  Apple is trying to push HTML5 instead (which isn't even official yet).  HTML5 won't become via until at least 2012 (CPU Mag).  The likelihood of something like Flash or Silverlight appearing in the final specifications are slim (too complex to implement on the browser level).

Apple is basically spinning it so the public doesn't get pissed at them (they get pissed at Adobe instead).


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 6, 2010)

everything uses flash, and apple is just being dumb about it.

Really it really is like Apple saying HD-DVD is what everyone will end up using. When really it's Blue-Ray, and everyone already knows about it.

Studios that have already spent massive amounts of money having their TV shows/Clips/Moives already converted into flash. Which workds on EVERYTHING, but the Iphone/Ipad. 

You really think that compaines are going to spend the small fourtune to convert them all? Yet, do you think Apple will do it for everyone for free?


They need to open their eyes, and then move on with what everyone uses.


----------



## regexorcist (Jun 6, 2010)

Adobe FLASH is old news and so is any proprietary
format, used on the web, in this day and age.
Open up or the market will use something else.

Adobe was arrogant to keep FLASH closed as long
as they did and not port it the BSD platform.
The demise of FLASH is lonnngggg overdue.

HTML5, canvas object, webGL, javascript, etc...
This is the future!!!


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 6, 2010)

Why is flashes demise reliant on BSD? Far to little people even use that platform. Or know it exists.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 6, 2010)

I think HTML5 with make video hosting much easier on the users.  Since the code is embedded it is hosted on their end.  This removes the need for specialized plugins or much overhead on your computer to view the video feed; however, I am not complete clear on all HTML5 is offering.  Flash has one important feature that would need to be reproduced to kill it, interactivity.  The fact their are complete games made in just flash that you can go online and play is a big deal.  If you cannot do the same with HTML5, Flash will be around for a while.

I personal never have any issues with Flash or its plugins, except that mess when I found out the IE/Windows Flash plugin is different from the Opera/Firefox/all other browsers plugin.

I am curious to see what happens as Flash 11 should have hardware acceleration from the GPU.  That will take the workload off the CPU and give them access to a massive amount of rendering power.  Flash could evolve into something far, far more powerful, efficient, and desirable.


----------



## regexorcist (Jun 6, 2010)

regexorcist said:


> Adobe FLASH is old news and so is any proprietary
> format, used on the web, in this day and age.
> Open up or the market will use something else.
> 
> ...





Solaris17 said:


> Why is flashes demise reliant on BSD? Far to little people even use that platform. Or know it exists.



The demise of FLASH is long overdue, but it has nothing to do with BSD.

Adobe was arrogant to ignore BSD when porting the the FLASH player.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 6, 2010)

I like flash tbh. Apple should bite the bullet and go with flash. Eventually any problem with it will be fixed in time.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 6, 2010)

i agree that HTML should be better than flash. but why was adobe arrogant to not port to BSD? BSD doesnt have that much weight.


----------



## Bot (Jun 6, 2010)

i think HTML5 will be the true web2.0
it will do and allow a lot more creativity for webpages and makes being creative easier. 
a lot of things about HTML5 were discussed at Google's I/O conf.

i am not a fan of flash and even less so of apple. i could live with neither.
adobe has long disappointed me by not supporting x64 bit and it's performance and reliability is very inconsistent. unless there is true improvement in the platform there is really no point to continuing  with it.

i hope HTML5 will be implemented a lot sooner then it is officially slated for.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 6, 2010)

Bot said:


> i think HTML5 will be the true web2.0
> it will do and allow a lot more creativity for webpages and makes being creative easier.
> a lot of things about HTML5 were discussed at Google's I/O conf.
> 
> ...



well said some of the tech demos etc are incredibly impressive it seems very flexible.


----------



## regexorcist (Jun 6, 2010)

Adobe FLASH was very important and I feel it was an
arrogant business decision to not put the resources needed 
into porting FLASH to BSD, because there are not that many users 
(or enough to matter). It has been requested for years.

Similar to a big important cable company not running lines for high speed
internet access into a rural area or location, because there
aren't that many people, so why bother running all that line.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2010)

The inventor of the Internet said there's no web <version number>.  The web is the web which is a conglomerate of many standards and protocols, each with their own iteration (HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, CSS, HTTP, HTTPS, SSL, and virtually everything else that uses a custom socket protocol).

Again, I stress that HTML5 spec is not finalized.  It's pretty much guaranteed to have a video codec built in but it is undecided which one.  It also has the canvas element as previously mentioned.  Everything else is purely speculation.


Remember, Adobe bought Flash thorugh Macrovision.  Macrovision didn't support BSD so why would Adobe?  There's far more potential users for 64-bit browsers than BSD.  They supported neither.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 6, 2010)

Well they did announce the video codec will support HD content now using something like the H.264 but open and free of licensing fees.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 6, 2010)

If you are a flash developer, does the sdk or whatever cost anything?  If it does, I think you will see people develop and publish using html5 and then using a cheap utility to convert to flash for non-html5 compliant browsers.

Apple is a whole other issue.  With their censoring of magazine content for pubs that want to be available on the ipad, the ipad version has become know as the Iran edition.  That should be enough to piss off even some of the Apple faithful.  

We'll see how it goes when the first wave of tablets comes out in a few months  - with flash support and no censorship.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Well they did announce the video codec will support HD content now using something like the H.264 but open and free of licensing fees.


They haven't decided between H.264 and VP8.  This is the official site for the developement of HTML5:
http://www.whatwg.org/

Here's the element that will call the codec:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#video


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 7, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They haven't decided between H.264 and VP8.  This is the official site for the developement of HTML5:
> http://www.whatwg.org/
> 
> Here's the element that will call the codec:
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#video



http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013152.html
|
V

_"we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies."_

If this statement is true, H.264 is going to have to go because that is a licensed container that does not comply with open source development.  I just thought that I read somewhere that H.264 was already off the table.


----------



## Oliver_FF (Jun 7, 2010)

Has everyone seen what is possible with HTML4/Javascript at the moment?

I get the feeling everyone is expecting something totally new in HTML5 when in reality the current HTML4/Javascript is already moving to take over Flash.

http://www.chromeexperiments.com/
Look at some of those ^^ (they most likely won't work in internet explorer, what can I say?) use Chrome/Safari/Firefox. If those don't open your minds to the possibilities of what can be achieved without any third party platform then nothing will.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 7, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013152.html
> |
> V
> 
> ...


Last I read, it wasn't.  Yes, VP8 is appealing in that it is royalty free but what use is it if virtually every video has to be converted to this virtually unknown format?  They may have settled on VP8 since publication of this CPU Mag article, I don't know.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 7, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Last I read, it wasn't.  Yes, VP8 is appealing in that it is royalty free but what use is it if virtually every video has to be converted to this virtually unknown format?  They may have settled on VP8 since publication of this CPU Mag article, I don't know.



I gave that issue away.  Maybe I should have read it first.

I don't think any of the current open source formats like MKV or OGG will work either because they currently cannot due true HD to my knowledge.  MKV can store a HD file, but it is a container not a video format so that doesn't count.

And I thought the whole point of including the video format like VP8 into the HTML coding is because you would need to worry about if the end-user has the codec or plug as they would not need it.  I get what you mean about converting, but I don't really thing they are going for a "Replace how you are doing it now" as much as a "We want to provide a easy solution for future use".

While it may be a good idea for sites like YouTube, Vimeo, etc. to convert over to it, I just don't see a reason to do it to all existing files, just support the option for new posts.  I am just speculating obviously, but I just see the feature set for HTML5 like the video support as being something that they are just standardizing and will gradually over time snuff out the need for a lot of things we will consider legacy software 5 to 7 years from now, but not necessary Flash.  Flash is not a video codec, it is a complete development platform that can be embedded into a site.  I don't see HTML5 video feature replacing Flash.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 7, 2010)

Oliver_FF said:


> Has everyone seen what is possible with HTML4/Javascript at the moment?
> 
> I get the feeling everyone is expecting something totally new in HTML5 when in reality the current HTML4/Javascript is already moving to take over Flash.
> 
> ...



The fact they will not work in IE makes them complete trash.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 7, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The fact they will not work in IE makes them complete trash.



IE is complete trash on its own.


----------



## Oliver_FF (Jun 7, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The fact they will not work in IE makes them complete trash.



The fact that they will not work in IE shows that IE is rubbish at following current internet standards. HTML4, Javascript and CSS are all common standards and have been around for quite some time.


----------



## Mr McC (Jun 7, 2010)

As far as I'm aware, HTML5 involves the use of the h.264 codec (I assume that's what we're discussing here). Mozilla refuses to support this codec as it is not open-source. The conglomerate behind h.264 is supplying it for free for the next few years, presumably to get everyone on board and then begin charging. If HTML5 entails extra expense and control down the road, I am completely against it and I would prefer to see greater adoption of Oog/Theora.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 7, 2010)

I'm sorry but IE is in fact industry standard.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 7, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm sorry but IE is in fact industry standard.



It's still shit.


----------



## lemode (Jun 7, 2010)

I have Chrome& Firefox on all my computers. I only have Firefox to test web design projects...not for browsing purposes. Safari, IE, Opera, or any other browser I’ve tried has seemed sh*tbox and clunky to me.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 7, 2010)

Flash is only really used for three things: videos, advertisements, and web games. HTML5 will eleminates the the use of Flash for the first (something standardized that doesn't require 3rd party software always sees the most universal use by web developers), canvas element will eliminate the use of Flash for advertisements and, Flash is likely to hold the web games market for the foreseeable future (I don't think anything in HTML5 is designed specifially to oust Flash in that department).


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 7, 2010)

Opera is now on my iPhone too.  IE is garbage.  It is only Industry standard because big business is short sited, slow to adapt, and being held by the short hairs by MS.

Until I find better, I will stick with Opera.


----------



## human_error (Jun 7, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Flash is only really used for three things: videos, advertisements, and web games. HTML5 will eleminates the the use of Flash for the first (something standardized that doesn't require 3rd party software always sees the most universal use by web developers), canvas element will eliminate the use of Flash for advertisements and, Flash is likely to hold the web games market for the foreseeable future (I don't think anything in HTML5 is designed specifially to oust Flash in that department).



HTML5 lacks DRM support - so videos which require DRM will not be available through HTML5 - that includes a lot of on demand tv services and tv station streaming. HTML5 is not the savior of the internet some people claim it to be. It's a good step forward yes, but it can't replicate all the features flash provides.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 7, 2010)

human_error said:


> HTML5 lacks DRM support - so videos which require DRM will not be available through HTML5 - that includes a lot of on demand tv services and tv station streaming. HTML5 is not the savior of the internet some people claim it to be. It's a good step forward yes, but it can't replicate all the features flash provides.



my guess is that will change rapidly once development is complete and third party devs and pubs grab onto it.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 7, 2010)

as of may 2010, IE has 50.53% market share while FF has 31.26%.  That IE number has been steadily eroding while FF has been growing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

What makes FF the clear choice is the plugins - noscript, adblock, xmarks, flashblock, etc, etc, etc.  Once you know what's available there really isn't any choice.

Opera may be faster and have some interesting features, but until either Opera, IE or any other competitor can accept FF plugin's or have the same wide array of plugins available for FF, it's a no-brainer IMO.


----------



## human_error (Jun 7, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> my guess is that will change rapidly once development is complete and third party devs and pubs grab onto it.



hulu said they will not be supporting HTML5 videos (ever) as there was no option of guaranteeing DRM support, which they are required to provide as part of their distribution contract. For them to come out and say that i'd say there is little chance of HTML5 supporting it without significant change to the spec.

Given that situation companies like hulu will just opt to keep using flash - as it works in flash now (thus having no extra cost as well).


----------



## lemode (Jun 7, 2010)

Since HTML 5 is still being developed there’s still time for this garbage to blow over…Apple will take their heads out of their asses and recognize an industry web standard and realize that they do not control what is what.

As I’ve said…I’ve learned Flash and developed with all Macromedia/Adobe products over a 10 year period…I highly doubt that HTML5 will just flat out stop supporting Flash when it comes down to it.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 7, 2010)

human_error said:


> hulu said they will not be supporting HTML5 videos (ever) as there was no option of guaranteeing DRM support, which they are required to provide as part of their distribution contract. For them to come out and say that i'd say there is little chance of HTML5 supporting it without significant change to the spec.
> 
> Given that situation companies like hulu will just opt to keep using flash - as it works in flash now (thus having no extra cost as well).



right, they said that with the current way html5 is developed. but obviously DRM can be implemented in the future.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 7, 2010)

I read something this morning that adobe is hooking up with a company. That will convert flash into html5 on the fly.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jun 7, 2010)

http://digg.com/d31TIBn



DaMulta said:


> I read something this morning that adobe is hooking up with a company. That will convert flash into html5 on the fly.


I feel like that might not work very well. I'm sure it can be done but I feel like the created code will not be efficient. Do any of you know of any non machine code to non machine code compilers that do an exceptional job?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 7, 2010)

http://www.esecurityplanet.com/feat...-PDF-at-Zero-Day-Vulnerability-Risk-Again.htm

Doesn't help matters.


----------



## Mr McC (Jun 7, 2010)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> http://www.esecurityplanet.com/feat...-PDF-at-Zero-Day-Vulnerability-Risk-Again.htm
> 
> Doesn't help matters.



It most certainly does not.


----------



## Pembo210 (Jun 7, 2010)

Live showing of HTML5 on ipad. (Still has performance problems):shadedshu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4


CPU usage of HTML5 vs. Flash 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVjIsL8qwNw




DaMulta said:


> I read something this morning that adobe is hooking up with a company. That will convert flash into html5 on the fly.


Its called Smokescreen. It uses Javascript.

Here's one of their demos
http://smokescreen.us/demos/kitchendailydemo.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 7, 2010)

Pembo210 said:


> CPU usage of HTML5 vs. Flash
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVjIsL8qwNw


That iPad advert uses JavaScript, not HTML5 (although it does have the HTML5 DOCTYPE).  JavaScript implementation depends on the browser and generally speaking, they're all crap because scripts have horrible performance.


No one is going to get serious about HTML5 performance/implementation until it is offical.  If they recode their browser and the specs change, they could have wasted a lot of time.


----------



## Mr McC (Jun 8, 2010)

twilyth said:


> as of may 2010, IE has 50.53% market share while FF has 31.26%.  That IE number has been steadily eroding while FF has been growing.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
> 
> What makes FF the clear choice is the plugins - noscript, adblock, xmarks, flashblock, etc, etc, etc.  Once you know what's available there really isn't any choice.
> ...



Indeed, Firefox with the plugins you mention has won me over.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 8, 2010)

Solaris17 said:


> i agree that HTML should be better than flash. but why was adobe arrogant to not port to BSD? BSD doesnt have that much weight.



How is that arrogant? Adobe is a company, they're not putting manpower on BSD when there are only 5 BSD desktop users world wide.


----------



## <<Onafets>> (Jul 11, 2010)

What influenced the change to HTML5 anyways? Programming limitations? I feel left out of an argument here!


----------



## magibeg (Jul 14, 2010)

<<Onafets>> said:


> What influenced the change to HTML5 anyways? Programming limitations? I feel left out of an argument here!



Well it's not really a change to html5 as far as flash is concerned.

HTML5 is just an update to HTML which allows it to expand on a number of features that would be important for HTML in this day and age. The reason why flash comes up is because a lot of those new features encroach on things that flash is normally used to do (such as playing videos and such).

Where things get more dicey though is because of the new HTML5 element known as the canvas which allows html5 to do a lot of drawing and animation that would normally be only possible using flash/shockwave/silverlight etc etc.

If canvas proves to be a viable tool it would be something which would work on websites that would require no plugins or 3rd party software to run so long as your browser supports html5. From a development perspective it means you don't have to spend the money on getting a license.


----------



## Pembo210 (Jul 14, 2010)

magibeg said:


> Well it's not really a change to html5 as far as flash is concerned.
> 
> HTML5 is just an update to HTML which allows it to expand on a number of features that would be important for HTML in this day and age. ...



thankyou


----------



## GSG-9 (Jul 14, 2010)

Some of the short hand is even shorter, that's really the only change I can think of. The rest is just additions as said above. Sites can store data on users computers to be accessed later (could mean faster page loading), its not directly part of html5 but there are many options for implementing typefaces that that are being associated with html5 and css3. Geoip is new and an html5 specification. Something kinda funny is W3C did not initially start HTML5, WHATWG did and W3C just kinda jumped on board.


----------

