[Steve_S]

SpinThis! said:

> As a web developer, you should know that this claim is no longer true with HTML 5.
All the HTML5 spec does is specify the syntax for embedding a movie; it doesn't require browser makers to support any audio or video codec natively. Microsoft has yet to pledge any kind of support for the "flash killer" canvas tag either.

True. However, royalty free codecs such as Ogg Theora are now becoming popular. As for Microsoft, I agree that Microsoft's support is still an issue today, but they are becoming less and less relevant on the web. As another poster commented, mobile web browsing is on the rise and these units out number desktops. Webkit is the most capable and most popular of the browsers and it supports HTML 5.

Quote

I have friends in IT and they tell me they haven't even rolled out IE7 yet because a) 6 works well enough for business Internet and b) corporate policy; c) they gotta test, d) they don't want to break some of the intranet and web apps, etc. I always joke with them, "so you're what's holding the web back!"

Agreed, corporate standardization on crap like IE is a problem. I'm in IT and the company I work for still has IE 6 deployed. Worse, they rely on activeX controls for things like VPN authentication, etc. Truly backwards, but that's how it goes with Microsoft shills.

Quote

Avoided how?

You say that, then describe how you try to avoid it when you can.

>I use standards all the time and most of the time I steer clear of Flash because it's simply not necesssary.

Quote

No, the issue is in the implementation. Browser makers (aside from Safari) won't do font downloads because there's still no good way to protect them. Microsoft actually has a viable proposal now for doing font embedded but the w3c doesn't want drm in the spec iirc.

No, Microsoft's DRM approach is not viable. Why would you even suggest that? Further, who is pressuring Mozilla not to follow Apple's lead here?

Quote

> the web should be neutral from a technology perspective.
Of course it should. I agree with you here. But how long are you going to wait for that to happen? 5 years? 10 years? Until everyone on the planet runs Ubuntu?

Who says everyone has to use Ubuntu? Proprietary clients are fine. Proprietary content on the web is not. As for current implementations, alternatives exist and Flash (often the lowest common denominator) should be the last option when better native versions are not available. Simple Javascript can be used to determine what's available on a given client.

But I'm not afraid to use Flash either if that's what it takes to get the job done. Whether it makes sense on the iPhone though? Probably not.

Right, and the growth in mobile devices begin to make Flash less attractive as time goes on. The growth isn't on the desktop and it's unlikely that Flash will be implemented well on any mobile device. To date, Flash hasn't been implemented well on mobile devices. This is exactly the kind of paradigm shift that going to render Flash and IE irrelevant.

[kill953]

[quote name='Steve_S']
>

kill953 said:

> Just one minor problem… HTML5 effects use even more %CPU than Flash! If one of the reasons for not liking or permitting Flash is battery life, HTML5 is most definitely not the answer.

For starters, there is no comprehensive test to support your claim. Second, any HTML 5 implementation out there is an early technology preview before the standard has even been completed. Third, with proprietary technologies like Flash and Silverlight, etc. you're at the mercy of that specific vendor to not only support your platform, but to support it equally. Macromedia / Adobe have produced terribly poor performing product on the Mac side for example. Whereas, with open standards like HTML 5, you get various browsers competing against each other. Look at the recent performance showdowns with regard to Javascript. Do you think that would be possible if Javascript were a proprietary product? You're a bit naive if you think we'd be better off with Flash for performance purposes.

From experience: http://webkit.org/bl...aves/index.html

Watch as a very simple HTML5 animation nearly maxes both your CPUs...

And I'll thank you for not putting words in my mouth. Where in my post did I defend Adobe and Flash or suggest that a proprietary solution is what was needed? My point was that HTML5 is not in a state to take the place of Flash, if it is battery life that is preventing Flash from being deployed on iPhones, because its own performance is suck-tastic too. It is also going to be a very long time before it is in a state that can be successfully deployed (by which time, I suspect the argument will be moot anyway, as it would be better optimised and the tech and hardware will have advanced far enough for it not to matter). Like it or not, Flash is what we have today and if Adobe is able to improve it enough to make it perform OK without draining battery like nobody's business, it is what Apple will need on the iPhone for it to remain successful on the web in the immediate to mid-term.

[doglesby]

kill953 said:

From experience: http://webkit.org/bl...aves/index.html

It looks lovely on my iPhone.

Adobe has had 10 versions and the performance remains atrocious on all but Windows. But I'm sure they'll have no problem fine tuning it on 3 mobile platforms. Meanwhile Google and Apple are sitting on their hands. Don't let Adobe's appalling record set your expectations for what these and other developers can do with WebKit.

All I know is that Flash better come with an off switch on those mobile platforms or people will be flocking to the iPhone for a Flash-free experience.

Let's face it, Flash is the web version of Real Basic. The actual applications of it have been so god-awful that many people have installed blockers.

[kill953]

[quote name='doglesby']
>

kill953 said:

> From experience: http://webkit.org/bl...aves/index.html
>
It looks lovely on my iPhone.

>
It looks lovely on my Mac too, but that doesn't stop it from being a CPU hog. Leave it running for a while on your phone and feel how hot it gets!

Quote

Adobe has had 10 versions and the performance remains atrocious on all but Windows. But I'm sure they'll have no problem fine tuning it on 3 mobile platforms. Meanwhile Google and Apple are sitting on their hands. Don't let Adobe's appalling record set your expectations for what these and other developers can do with WebKit.

All I know is that Flash better come with an off switch on those mobile platforms or people will be flocking to the iPhone for a Flash-free experience.

Let's face it, Flash is the web version of Real Basic. The actual applications of it have been so god-awful that many people have installed blockers.

No doubt, if it ever arrives it will have to be an opt-in setting rather than an on by default one. The Click-to-Flash model and site specific preferences would be the best solution so that you can allow it for domains where its needed but block it for everything else.

As for the second part - no offence but it is not the tool that is the problem here, but the people who used it or commissioned its use. HTML5 animations are destined to be just as abused as Flash or animated gifs or any other form of "flash" out there.

[doglesby]

[quote name='kill953']
> [quote name='doglesby']
> >

kill953 said:

> > From experience: http://webkit.org/bl...aves/index.html
> >
> It looks lovely on my iPhone.
>
It looks lovely on my Mac too, but that doesn't stop it from being a CPU hog. Leave it running for a while on your phone and feel how hot it gets!

I had it running for 20 minutes. How long should I wait? Have you actually looked at it on an iPhone? Compared to a static page it uses more battery, but compared to an app like Koi Pond (sorry, I don't have a falling leaves app), not at all.