HTML5 vs. Flash

[Oliver_FF]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[DrPepper]

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

IE is complete trash on its own.

 

[Oliver_FF]

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]

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]

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

 

[DrPepper]

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

It's still shit.

 

[lemode]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[GSG-9]

http://digg.com/d31TIBn

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]

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

Doesn't help matters.

 

[Mr McC]

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

Doesn't help matters.

It most certainly does not.

 

[Pembo210]

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

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]

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]

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.

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