Death of Flash
- Started
- Last post
- 205 Responses
- partdeux0
flash sites. boom. dead.
- Projectile0
http://stackoverflow.com/questio…
highlight:
When Steve J. made the comments about HTML5 being the future, he didn't bother to explain that this statement really refers to the most widespread use of Flash today, that being Video. Perhaps he didn't explain this purposely, so that many misinformed end users who want to watch Hulu on their iPhones would unleash their rage against Flash. Which is exactly what has been happening..It is annoying and I lost respect for Steve.
The HTML5 stack (html, css and JS) will NOT be a direct replacement for Flash. I have been developing Flash content for over 10 years, I am also very competent in JS. I cringe thinking about using JS for tasks where ActionScript can accomplish the same thing in 50% less code. There are tasks that will be very difficult if not impossible to achieve with JS and CSS. For rudimentary animations and JQuery-like functionality, sure, HTML5 can be a viable option instead Flash. But for complex games and RIAs, I just don't see it. Actionscript has evolved into a robust, full featured language.
The other important thing is that the Flash player is updated by Adobe periodically to address any issues that may arise. How will they update/improve HTML5 spec if it becomes the norm and Flash went bye-bye?? They won't. You have to wait for HTML6 and all the browsers to support it. Which means you end up waiting 5-10 years. Great way to bring us back to 1998. No thanks, I'll stick with Flash for now.
As much as open standards are a worthy goal, I don't see this panning out the way they are saying...
My two cents.
- Peter0
Allow me to meddle
Flash AND html 5: now one money-making project of yours can be made into two.
- partdeux0
think of how much data would be used to download flash content on a mobile device... hence why I think it'll never go mobile
- this makes no sense. optimization is a huge part of any flash devs job. most things i build are < 200KB landing pages 20-30 KB loader.kingsteven
- (with a 20KB loader) Even the QBN homepage is 250K. If you're talking advertising, video embeds etc. It's more of a performance issue.kingsteven
- performance issue, but we'll have 1Ghz 4G iPhones by the end of the year, that will be (faster at browsing than most desktops).kingsteven
- partdeux0
think of how much data would be used to download flash content on a mobile device... hence why I think it'll never go mobile
- SumWurk0
- Shister!SumWurk
- creepye-pill
- i haf to go to creepygif.com to view the creepy gif animation.jazmine
- ernexbcn0
Adobe will eventually create an authoring tool that takes advantage of the HTML5 canvas element + javascript. I haven't read about it but I'd bet money that the next versions of the Flash IDE will have those capabilities.
- BusterBoy0
After taking a look at Zeldman's article, it just reinforces how dumb this whole argument is...tons of contradictions and inaccuracies when thinking outside the "developer's bubble".
Joe Public couldn't give a fuck if a site uses HTML5, Javascript or Flash, as long as it works. IMHO, Flash is so ubiquitous that the whole plugin debate is pretty silly. How many Browsers out there that take almost 100% of the market? Bugger all so a lot of the "standards movement" kind of reminds me of the climate change debate...there's some truth but it's mired in so much politically correct bullshit.
- lol, but browsers all together are more ubiquitous than flash, and they run on macs and netbooks. Flash essentially doesn't.Pupsipu
- doesn't. It's not for mac lol. For all it's ubiquity if it runs like shit for 10% of users, what's the point?
Pupsipu - What's the LOL for? Flash is more ubiquitous than the Mac OS so what's your point?BusterBoy
- and browsers are on windows AND macs. And they run consistently on both.Pupsipu
- the LOL is for you trying to equate Flash to an individual browser, that's misleading.Pupsipu
- individual browsers don't need to have 100% penetration, all together they have 100% penetration. While Flash is essentially 90%, not for mac.Pupsipu
- essentially 90%, not for Mac.Pupsipu
- Flash is 98%. And there are hardly any browser issues there. Flash reaches people more reliably for the foreseeable future.CyBrain
- SteveJobs0
@zeldman "Flash won’t die tomorrow, but plug-in technology is on its way out."
just wow. somebody call adobe and sun; the prophet has spoken.
--------------------------------... (semicolon)look, i think the flaw here is in this one-sided kind of thinking. it's too either/or. both technologies have their strengths and there's no reason they can't work along side one another.
- sixfngers0
http://blog.assortedgarbage.com/…
this guy brings up a valid question. if ads shift to being done in html5 + jsImagine the chaos in your ads/pages when CSS class names or element IDs conflict, or your Javascript calls an element that has the same name as one in your page/ad. The only solution will be to disable the very thing that it’s built with. So, go ahead, turn off Javascript
i edited some of the smarmyness you can read that in the link at the top
- There are aspects of reserved words used frequently amongst ad providerswhatsup
- spraycan0
I am not passionate about Java, but when i see so many stupid comparisons (like comparing java to as3)(yes someone with no real understanding of coding would compare both because of their similar syntax maybe, but that's an extremely basic pov).
Java is a great programing language, it is the only programing language that permits you to do many different things with a high level programming approach( sockets, internet application, http server build, desktop application , OS build etc...). btw i mainly code in C those days, and i consider Java a pretty well written abstraction so i dont see the problem with the virtual machine.
maybe low level programming is not for you !
- whatsup0
^ This is the second time I've heard this, "bringing us back to 1998" on the basis that we are not using flash. Whether we use flash or not, it doesn't really matter to the consumer, until they meet a flash website.
Ok, so at a developer's standpoint, you'd weigh out the best possible technologies, as Apple has and they made their choice. A wise decision and BTW a Green decision too. Energy savings alone gets a big thumbs up. However, if you're willing to fight the fight... what can you do in Flash that you would not be able to with HTML5 in the future?
Doing simple 3d animation between two transitioning states with HTML5 was a cinch. I've not seen this possible within Flash, and all the 3d there was not real 3d. After seeing this in HTML5, I now think that it may be possible for better games within in comparison to Flash.
The fact that a flash player updates itself more frequently in comparison to these HTML standards, still flash has to deal with spreading the update across all browsers. However, HTML5 could update as frequently as the browser updated, but there wouldn't be any need to.
I thought the open standards issue is a big thumbs up for developers. With a flash player, you're either a flash developer or not. Leaving all the others in the dust. This new direction Apple has taken pretty much opens itself to a larger developer community. If that's not a worthy goal, then what is?
my2
- apple fan boyspraycan
- i simply posted it because it was something i hadnt thought ofsixfngers
- i dont care what i have to develop in i can do whateversixfngers
- damn i hate breaking up comments like thissixfngers
- oops! this was @ projectilewhatsup
- BTW- @ spraycan - apple fan boy? I highly doubt that but sounds like you put alot of thinking into that thought.whatsup
- CyBrain0
The claim that Flash can't run well on an iPhone, let alone an iPad with more power is a weak claim and even an admission of inferiority if you consider that Palm, Nokia and Android all run Flash without complaints from their users.
- georgesIII0
who here is actually a dev?
- How dare you question our emotionally spawned opinions! Pitchforks, everyone! Get'im!Peter
- kingsteven0
they need some site-by-site safari/ flash approval. sometimes i wonder if it's a coincidence that the "technology company" that runs the largest online music store in the world, limits the use of the player technology used by every indie record store.
just let the consumer decide? if it's a buggy mess that crashes my iphone every 5 minutes I'll probably turn it off my self?
- the consumer would decide by returning the iphone, not turning flash off.ephix
- ideaist0
Can't we as designers / developers hold some type of protest and demand flash on portable devices? It seems unfair that Apple is letting us know what technology we can use rather than the other way around...
Any protest ideas???
- BIGGESTDOGINTHEWORLD0
_
"I'll probably turn it off my self?"
Yeah I'm sure peoples Mums and Dads will even understand the concept of a plugin, let alone which thing to turn off in preferences to stop their browser chugging along and crashing. They'll probably just come to the conclusion the iPhone is shit and then go back to their dumb handset.Do you see where Apple is coming from now? They are sick of an outside company's technology having a negative impact on the perception of their products.
Its not some tin foil hat iTunes store conspiracy, Apple makes money on hardware not music sales. And if that hardware appears to be shitty because of Flash they'll ditch Flash
- "they need some site-by-site safari/ flash approval." read the first fucking sentence.kingsteven
- as for the "conspiracy" i used to do a lot of flash sites for record companies, and i'm an iPhone using music purchaser.kingsteven
- i'm simply stating that what is being passed off as a technical decision, benefits the part of apple's business that fuels their hardware sales...kingsteven
- hardware sales.kingsteven
- that doesn't mean if i worked for apple i'd come to the same decision... in fact i'd probably ban flash for this reason alone.kingsteven
