Is Flash dead?
- Started
- Last post
- 98 Responses
- pango0
apparently not.
http://superior-web-solutions.co…
can we please set it on fire already?
- jetSkii0
I think Youtube will eventually go HTML5 with their video if they want to give their users more power and interaction. But I don't see it happening til IE9 comes out and begin updating their users. However, it would be a great time for YouTube to offer non HTML5 compliant browsers a direct link to Google Chrome since they're owned by the same group. In fact, Google should just change over all of Google to HTML5 and also give them direct links to Chrome.
- lukus_W0
not_this_shit_again.gif
- ukit0
Actually it's the first reason they listed - "Standard Video Format"
Obviously it's an issue that will take at least a little time to resolve. But it's not a deal killer, nor are any of the others. In fact, since writing that post they already solved one of the issues:
http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/…
In other words, sure there are some kinks to be worked out, but I'm 99% sure that YouTube will eventually switch to HTML5.
- fyoucher10
Re: ukit
Actually YouTube has a bunch of reasons why it's sticking with Flash, not bc of HTML not being supported. That's not even a reason listed.
http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/…Personally, I think their MAIN reason for keeping it is because of advertising. When it comes down to it, Google is in the business of making money.
- SrSamaurai0
http://www.osnews.com/story/2396…
microsoft looking towards html5
- ukit0
The comment about HTML5 video being limited because "you can't cue things, add code, make in interactive" isn't really true. Whatever you can do with JS can obviously be applied to control HTML5 video.
The reason YouTube didn't switch to it yet has more to do with the simple fact that most browsers don't yet support HTML5.
- ukit0
yep fyoucher1 you are right. Flash will continue to hold on in those niche roles of banner ads and video for the short-term future. Whether that is really a victory for Flash is up for debate.
What Boz described would be a more exciting future for Flash, gaining a dominance in terms of mobile devices and TV. However that is a battle that is yet to be won.
- fyoucher10
Two big reasons it's not going to die:
1. Flash banner ads. Advertising makes too much money. A lot of sites depend entirely on advertising. I see Flash to 'html5' conversion tools helping the process work with iOS devices but in the end I see Apple allowing Flash player on (because Adobe finally fixes it), or because too many mobile phone competitors have a step up. Let's face it, the hardware is going to get plenty fast soon enough to where we aren't even worrying about performance. I believe the hardware will improve much faster than the time it would take for a new technology to become ubiquitous.2. HTML video is very limited. You can't cue things, add code, make it interactive, shit like that. Why do you think YouTube is sticking with Flash? Video is a massive portion of the future web, especially when it comes to your TV.
Other notes:
AIR isn't the future of Flash but just another way for Flash to reach your device. It's just another great reason to stick with using it and selling it to clients. It's versatile and will be able to be repurposed through all of the different platforms out there.- no alpha channel support either
.. at least i dont believe sodeathboy - and the GUI is a big help. adobe will play both audiences, JS gui AS gui combination futuredeathboy
- GUI may not be the only reason but its gotta be the largest for AS to trump JS before. Mobile is only difference nowdeathboy
- difference now. The current lask of suppor twill push drive mor js stuff, but will it be cost effective?deathboy
- Yeah, essentially Flash is better at multimedia, HTML is better at data.fyoucher1
- Are you crazy? HTML video has a powerful API.jetSkii
- Sorry but that's far from advanced. No alpha channel means square viewing, no integration w/ other media.fyoucher1
- no alpha channel support either
- ukit0
Mostly wrong deathboy, what do mean you can't do simple animation in JS? Yes, Flash is the better solution for banner ads and will be for some time but that's because of the unique nature of banners needing to be embedded and so on.
For simple animation JS is clearly the better choice these days.
- i mean i personally cant script it on notepaddeathboy
- a gui is beautiful. and i think adobe will help support a javascript gui or advanced AS export thingydeathboy
- i think the reasons why flash out did js back in the day still stands to day. the only downside so far is mobile supportdeathboy
- support. thats the only reasonable reason. but that will change soon lookign at the kind of power mobile will have in a year, and flash evolutiondeathboy
- in a year and where flash will bedeathboy
- Wait you can create a flash banner with runtime blurs and all that jazz faster in javascript then flash?deathboy
- and if jpegs and such are all "embedded" for banner adds why not just the js... i must be missing somethingdeathboy
- deathboy-1
I cant do a simple banner animation in javascript. However i can do it in flash. Flash is far more simple and versatile. Allowing more people to do it. Which should make it more economically feasible. I think this is why flash grew so much. More options and a gui with more people offering it. If plugins and browsers play nicely i see no big deal in having a plugin. FOr mobile devices i have seen reports that flash is superior to javascript/html 5 (PCs not in safari browsers) on battery intensive stuff. but that also comes down to how well something is built. So i could go either way. Just drives me nuts how many people who can do simple flash stuff and 0 javascript are helping to push the idea flash is dead. There is no such argument and there is no reason for someone to even need to ask such a thing. Its just advertising done by a guy who thought his media player would be the number one player, and is pissed it wasnt.
- ukit0
And I don't think cost is the reason Flash failed as the dominant medium on the "regular" web. If all-Flash sites were a better payoff for businesses they would obviously pay the slightly higher cost upfront. It's because web standards are simply a much better solution in terms of usability, SEO, and other basic factors.
I don't think you'll ever see big sites like CNN or whatever built in Flash. The only company that really tried this was F-I and they failed spectacularly at it.
- flash has always been an animation based resource right? The stuff javascript sucked at without a GUIdeathboy
- actionscript is just evolved javascript with more options and interface.deathboy
- What I meant, agencies can sell sites cheaper to produce for the same money now.raf
- Not that they're cheating clients. Their time costs the same, their devs are cheaper than Flash devs used to be.raf
- Either way...I don't think that's the reason. Companies will ultimately demand the better option, agencies can't impose it on them.ukit
- I'm not saying they're imposing it, only enjoying the trend.raf
- ukit0
Browsers aren't apps, they're like the technology that runs the app on your phone. If you have to draw an analogy.
- raf0
Browsers are apps themselves, and as performances grow, more tasks will be offloaded onto them, if only for ease of production.
One of the main reasons agencies are happy with current non-animated blog-style website trend is that they're faster (a.k.a. cheaper) to build than Flash ones.
Also, not every type of website will make sense as a cloud source.
- ukit0
More fundamentally, to imagine a world where mobile takes over you'd have to imagine one where people are mobile the whole time.
I tried bringing my iPad to work one day - nope, didn't work:)
- ernexbcn0
There are many Twitter clients for OS X and I'm still using the website and don't see myself turning over to a dedicated app for that any time soon.
So yeah, there might be new apps that access web content, but the browser has still a future.