Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HTML5 vs. Flash — the Case For Flash

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the here-and-now-has-an-advantage dept.

Graphics 510

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Peter Wayner offers seven reasons why web designers will remain loyal to Flash for rich web content, despite 'seductive' new capabilities offered by HTML5. Sure, HTML5 aims to duplicate many of the features that were once the sole province of plugins (local disk storage, video display, better rendering, algorithmic drawing, and more) and has high-profile backers in Google and Apple, but as Wayner sees it, this fight is more about designers than it is about technocrats and programmers. And from its sub-pixel resolution, to its developer tools, to its 'write once, play everywhere' functionality, Flash has too much going for it to fall by the wayside. 'The designers will make the final determination. As long as Flash and its cousins Flex and Shockwave remain the simplest tools for producing drop-dead gorgeous websites, they'll keep their place on the Internet.'"

cancel ×

510 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Flash (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433506)

penis

Sorry about the smell... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433594)

Sorry about the smell, I just dropped an Obama in my pants!

lolwut? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433554)

"As long as Flash and its cousins Flex and Shockwave remain the simplest tools for producing drop-dead gorgeous Websites, they'll keep their place on the Internet."

Okay, now you're just trolling.

Re:lolwut? (5, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433982)

Yeah, Flash and Flex (nobody uses Shockwave) should not be used for websites. The goal of a site is to get people information as quickly and easily as possible. These technologies should be used for moderately-complex web applications (where HTML controls are too limiting).

Re:lolwut? (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433998)

Yep. "Simplest tools" is not exactly true is it...

Re:lolwut? (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434118)

Well... Compared to handwritten svg...
even inkscape... Not saying that inkscape is bad, just not taught to as many designers as flash is...

Re:lolwut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32434044)

"As long as Flash and its cousins Flex and Shockwave remain the simplest tools for producing drop-dead gorgeous Websites, they'll keep their place on the Internet."

Okay, now you're just trolling.

Yeah

The poster needs to be sent to time out, where they are forced to browse The CSS Zen Garden [csszengarden.com] for about 30 minutes. When they are done, they can come apologize for their comment.

Re:lolwut? (3, Insightful)

HHacim (1068726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434092)

Please point me to one website that is "drop-dead gorgeous" and not full of superfluous animations that slow down my browser.

Re:lolwut? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434122)

I have to agree.
First I have never seen a drop-dead gorgeous Website. Some of the images and videos maybe stunning but the website it's self tend to be just okay.
Here let me fix that for you.
As long as Flash remain the simplest tools to slow to load, hard to navigate, and "flashy" websites. Designers with more style than substance will keep using it.

Flash really does mean style over substance.

It's not write once play everywhere.... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433562)

Until you can get it to work RIGHT on things like my Nokia N800 and my Motorola Droid (or, hey, the iPhone, hm?) it's not going to be write once run everywhere.

Besides, I thought that was Java's claim to fame and it's definitely not there yet either.

Java startup time (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433628)

Besides, I thought that was Java's claim to fame and it's definitely not there yet either.

Java applets lost out to SWF because 1. the Java plug-in takes a lot longer to start up than the Flash Player plug-in, and 2. there initially weren't any tools to author and play back vector animations using Java 2D. Are there now?

Re:It's not write once play everywhere.... (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433776)

Hell, I've had a lot of trouble to get it running on 64 bit Linux. And I still have the strong idea that it crashes my Firefox browser now and then. This is nothing like running it on ARM or anything, this is one of the things that should just work.

Re:It's not write once play everywhere.... (1)

Nexus7 (2919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433914)

Agreed... the Ch_p_tle site is a pain to use on my N900, and this is when I'm hungry, out on the road, blood sugar is running real low... and bam... flash site strikes! So Google search, here we go!

The future should be Qt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433918)

The future clearly should be Qt. It runs just about anywhere, from mobile devices to PCs, and it has bindings to numerous other languages (besides its native C++), and it offers a huge number of features, and it's true open source software.

It's pathetic that in 2010 we're still wasting our time with stupid and shitty products like Flash and HTML5 canvas.

Qt's networking classes make it extremely easy to write network-aware applications. It can integrate with existing web services with almost no effort on the developer's part.

Once you've used Qt, you'll never want to go back to web development or Flash development ever again. They end up feeling so primitive and outright stupid compared to what Qt lets you achieve.

Re:The future should be Qt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32434042)

How do you propose we use Qt without allowing sites to execute native code on your machine, which would clearly be insane?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if a good, generic VM like Silverlight (or something better) became standard, and then we could use just about any language and toolkit in a safe environment without hideous Javascript crap. But we're not really there yet.

Re:The future should be Qt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32434170)

Any real operating system, such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux and Solaris, makes it extremely easy to create sandboxes or jails for native processes. They give very fine-grained control over what the process can access, and you can set limits on how much disk space can be used, how much memory can be used, and so forth.

In fact, it's far better than what any web browser could ever offer. And you're not stuck using JavaScript, ActionScript, Flash, HTML5 canvas, and other half-baked and shitty technologies like those. You can write applications in real languages like C, C++, Python, Ruby, Perl, Haskell, Erlang, Common Lisp and Scheme. You can use real application frameworks like Qt.

With virtually all major devices today using x86, x64 or ARM-based CPUs, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to write native applications that can be retrieved via HTTP, can communicate with other servers via HTTP, and can run almost anywhere.

Re:The future should be Qt. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32434050)

Qt? Do you mean that piece of shit called QuickTime? For shaaame.

Re:It's not write once play everywhere.... (3, Interesting)

ink (4325) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433964)

Yes, I spit coffee at my screen when I read that quote from Adobe. Apparently their Flash engineers haven't tried to go to Vimeo while running Linux. It's mind-numbingly slow on my 2.8ghz P4 system running Ubuntu 10.04 and Chrome 6 (with integrated Flash 10.1). Contrarily, HTML5 YouTube plays content using 20% of my CPU. Adobe engineers even admit that Flash is not designed to be a video player [adobe.com] -- so perhaps there is room for both technologies going forward.

Why I hate flash (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434090)

is because it's only as good as Adobe implementation on your platform, and they and they alone decide whether your platform is worth sticking money/time into to make a better flash player. It's not a standard. Unlike a browser, no one else can go out and decide to make a better flash player (gnash ignored).

My 1.67Ghz G4 Powerbook to this day can only play flash videos extremely choppy and games hardly at all. It can play downloaded video or DVDs just fine.

maybe but,, (2, Insightful)

phrostie (121428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433580)

i understand the arguement, but don't forget about performance and stability.

wait and see how smooth, fast, and stable the HTML5 sites are to the flash counterparts.

give it time.

Re:maybe but,, (3, Informative)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434068)

To wit, you can watch youtube in HTML5 for those who don't know already.

Linky: http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]

I would like to see someone run a comparative benchmark on that puppy...

Misses the point (2, Insightful)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433582)

None of the flash benefits described by the article are impossible to replicate in HTML5/browser/javascript, and it's naive to assume that the new ecosystem wont continue to evolve over time just as flash has.

Re:Misses the point (0)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433700)

But that is one of the main points of the article... the Flash tools are great, while the HTML5/Javascript tools are still playing catch up (at least as far as the designers are concerned). Maybe it is a perception and/or marketing issue more than a technical one?

Re:Misses the point (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433706)

I don't think the author was saying that you couldn't replicate features from flash in html 5 so much as saying that it is lazier to just do it all in flash and therefore flash will dominate for quite some time. There's actually a bigger problem and that is that HTML 5 support is quite limited among browsers, especially in IE. So even if it was vastly simpler to do everything in flash, it will take quite some time for the older non-HTML 5 supporting browsers to die off.

Re:Misses the point (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433770)

True, but HTML5 can attack flash from below and gradually, somewhat inevitably, displace it from each of the applications mentioned. I don't dispute that he was arguing flash has an advantage, but I don't think it is as safe from the new threat as he suggests that it is. How long do you think flash has? Two years? Five? The relevant question that the piece suggests but does not address is not if, but when!

Re:Misses the point (1)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433728)

Agreed 100%. This article is basically saying Flash is too big to fail. I don't buy it. The barrier to entry for <canvas> is so much lower. It's just a matter of time before we have excellent—and free—developer tools. Plus, in this industry, new and cool has always won over old and reliable.

Canvas animation editor or DNF? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433886)

You claim that it's a matter of time before we have a Free 2D vector animation editor and JavaScript playback library for HTML5 <canvas>. It was also a matter of time before Duke Nukem Forever came out, until it was canceled a decade later.

Re:Canvas animation editor or DNF? (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433962)

Only one team could make DNF. In this case however any entrepreneurial firm or individual who sees the pain felt by designers, recognizes the need and thus opportunity to develop these tools, can then attempt to marshal the resources necessary to do so and execute. That is the beauty of a free and open system and that is yet another performance vector that Flash will not be able to fight back on effectively without seriously changing their strategy.

Re:Misses the point (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434084)

This article is basically saying Flash is too big to fail.

Can we please retire this phrase? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

Re:Misses the point (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433796)

None of the flash benefits described by the article are impossible to replicate in HTML5/browser/javascript, and it's naive to assume that the new ecosystem wont continue to evolve over time just as flash has.

They're not impossible to replicate, but at the moment it would be incredibly time consuming to replicate that funcionality and the result would be subject to browser compatibility. Flash stuff just needs a player.

Don't get me wrong, Flash is on its way out but the vultures are circling around it years before its time is up, all while preaching a standard that hasn't even been fully developed or implemented yet.

Re:Misses the point (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434034)

How do you add font support to HTML5? TTF would be nice, but I'll settle for OpenType.

Re:Misses the point (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434104)

You mean something likethis? [blogspot.com]

Re:Misses the point (4, Insightful)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434114)

But it is not so much about HTML5 capabilities, but the tools to leverage these capabilities. You can make 'easily' gorgeous flash website with the tools of the adobe suite. But there is no equivalent suite of tools for HTML5. And HTML5 will have a very hard time to take off as long as a website designer will not be able to do what they do with flash without the need to know jack about CSS, Javascript and HTML. Now I could see that adobe will buy out any company that will try to make these tools to compete against them.

Re:Misses the point (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434186)

Do you know if any Intergrated Development Environments that generates SVG + Javascript... Inkscape is probably what comes closest, and Inkscape is good, but it's not anywhere near as good as the Flash tools for making interactive content...
Anybody, even knows of serious projects trying to create an HTML5/SVG/javascript IDE ?

I think this is the real problem... It's all developers, developers, developers...

They almost had me until this.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433592)

The real battle is in the hearts and eyes of the artists who are paid to create incredibly beautiful objects in the span of just a few hours.

They are right that the development environment matters. That is not a reason to tell out right lies.

How come the folks at Adobe cannot just change it so that the output is javascript and html rather than actionscript? Does html 5 just not do vector graphics?

Re:They almost had me until this.... (1)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433842)

Not to feed the trolls, but the answer is obvious: backwards compatibility.

Okay, so that's a noble goal. The real goal is because Adobe LIKES TO MAKE MONEY!

Hope this helps clarify things for you.

As with most wars... (4, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433596)

This one has multiple fronts. Don't let anyone kid you, this isn't A vs. B, it is at least ABC vs. XYZ where each factor is independently weighed and measured.

A test case (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433608)

Re-create Badgers [badgerbadgerbadger.com] in Flash. Once you can do that without adding more than 50% to the file size, and you can provide a write-up about the tools you used, only then will HTML5 be ready for prime time. (One comment a couple stories back suggested rendering each frame of the SWF and then encoding that in H.264 or WebM, but that would increase the size far beyond the current 463 KB.)

Re:A test case (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433732)

The fact that garbage like Badgers exists on the web at all is strong evidence that we need to leave Flash behind.

Re:A test case (2, Informative)

mini me (132455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433740)

Why recreate when you can just play it in HTML5 natively? http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/06/01/1748200 [slashdot.org]

sb45demo (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433818)

I tried sb45demo in Smokescreen in Firefox 3.6 on Windows. There wasn't any sound, and the frame rate was unusably low.

Re:sb45demo (1)

KTheorem (999253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433972)

I had the same problem on Linux. The solution, for me, was to turn off adblock for the page and reload. Worked perfectly after that.

Re:sb45demo (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434054)

The second time I go to the sb45demo page, it works fine. I just don't get it.

Re:A test case (1)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434012)

I see your Badgers and raise my crystal galaxy [effectgames.com] . Warning: addicting. Use both left and right mouse buttons if you don't want to RTFM.

Nonsense (5, Informative)

ScienceMan (636648) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433618)

I already block Flash automatically, as it drags down performance and rarely adds any content.

There are a few cases in which useful content has been designed in Flash, but most of the time it is useless eye candy - and more often than not, just pure advertising. A great way to block most advertising that you do not want is to block Flash. Why would you not want to do that?

Re:Nonsense (2, Insightful)

snookerdoodle (123851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433864)

Between you, me (Flashblock myself), and 2 million iPad owners, "its 'write once, play everywhere' functionality" seems to have lost its luster...

Re:Nonsense (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434060)

A great way to block most advertising that you do not want is to block Flash.

Unfortunately that will all fall by the wayside if/when advertisers start using HTML5.

Gnash: The Flash Movie Player (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433620)

Information can be found here [gnu.org] .

I hope this helps your GNU effort at software reform.

Yours In Akademgorodok,
K. Trout

This page requires a new version of Flash Player (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433724)

Gnash supports old SWF features (up to SWF 7) but not all new SWF features. This means it's good for showing "This page requires a new version of Flash Player. Get the latest version at Adobe.com" movies.

Re:Gnash: The Flash Movie Player (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434066)

Gnash is, well, pretty crappy. It's slow as heck, doesn't sync audio properly (mostly because it tends to render way too slowly and doesn't know how to frameskip right), and can't handle most nontrivial Flash content. It appears they've ditched the OpenGL backend (which is poor anyway), and the AGG backend is uselessly slow at nontrivial output sizes. I've had better luck with the two years abandoned swfdec than with Gnash. It really ought to be a lot better by now.

I've seen people create weird Flash-player-ish things in a few days or weeks that seem to do lots of things better than Gnash. To me it sounds like the Gnash devs just don't really know what they're doing. Personally, I'm hoping that lightspark [sourceforge.net] will finally become THE decent open-source Flash player.

"...drop-dead gorgeous..." (4, Insightful)

McNihil (612243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433626)

No website on this planet is "drop-dead gorgeous"... a woman (or man if you prefer) in real 3D right in front of you and that you can touch and communicate with is infinitely much more "drop-dead gorgeous" even if they are butt ugly.

Re:"...drop-dead gorgeous..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433950)

No website on this planet is "drop-dead gorgeous"... a woman (or man if you prefer) in real 3D right in front of you and that you can touch and communicate with is infinitely much more "drop-dead gorgeous" even if they are butt ugly.

Written like a butt ugly person.

So flash is a good thing for site design now? (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433630)

The whole point of flash was that the standards were so ignored that designers were glomping onto something, anything, that would show consistently across the browsers. But at this point with Firefox having the market share that it does and the other minor browsers taking on as many installs as they do by being more or less standards compliant, I fail to see why any designer in their right mind would be using Flash where alternatives exist.

As long as it isn't a real standard you're going to be giving up a portion of the potential market by using a proprietary plug in that isn't universally supported. Not to mention the people that block it because of the problems it causes and the abuses of technology over the years.

IE is still well over 50 percent (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433764)

But at this point with Firefox having the market share that it does and the other minor browsers taking on as many installs as they do by being more or less standards compliant, I fail to see why any designer in their right mind would be using Flash where alternatives exist.

Because Firefox itself is a minor browser. More than half of web users (and likely more than half of your site's customers) use Internet Explorer 8 or earlier, whose DOM doesn't support all features needed to replace SWF. For example, where's SVG? Where's the 2D canvas? Where's procedural audio?

Re:IE is still well over 50 percent (4, Insightful)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434026)

Users will switch to other browsers if the use case is compelling enough. If enough innovative applications are developed that don't run in I.E., particularly applications with good business use cases, than the numbers will fall even further. The critical fact here is that FF/Chrome/Safari are starting to have enough combined market share to make the development of such applications an economically viable thing to do. It's entirely possible that this has already tipped against I.E.'s favor. Flash and Internet Explorer are strange bedfellows.

Lacking privileges to install software (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434198)

Users will switch to other browsers if the use case is compelling enough.

Not if they're at work or at the library, therefore not an administrator, and thus can't install another browser. As I wrote in my essay about HTML5 vs. SWF [pineight.com] :

A lot of PCs come with Flash Player preinstalled but no HTML5 player. Organizations' IT departments are likely to lock down installation of plug-ins. There is a plug-in called Google Chrome Frame that adds HTML5 support to Internet Explorer versions 6 through 8, but as long as far more sites use SWF than HTML5, IT departments are more likely to authorize the deployment of Flash Player than Chrome Frame.

Re:So flash is a good thing for site design now? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433912)

Why? That's easy to answer. Its because its easier. WAY WAY easier, especially for designers who know nothing about programming, or for that matter designers who can do some basic scripting but don't want to have to pay someone for something more advanced if they can fashion it using flash.

I don't doubt that html5 will eventually replace flash, but only because flash will become the average designer's html5 authoring program.

Re:So flash is a good thing for site design now? (2, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433974)

It's also about tools, and apparently flash has a pretty good toolset.

And the number one reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433648)

1.) The boss likes those pop-over menus with the moving gradients, lens flat, the shines and don't forget the rotating image. The ads "pop" and you can never have enough "pop". That's what keeps the visitors coming back. The menu. Not the sites content. [/cynical]

Nothing Gorgeous About a Cruddy Plugin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433674)

Adobe products have been a vector for security vulnerabilities, and Flash has been one of the main sources of crashes for me in Firefox (along with Acrobat Reader, not surprisingly). I really don't like or want Flash intros or ads. Flash navigation can definitely be done in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Video was always better handled by just letting the browser pick whatever video player you have associated with the MIME type (not a fan of the Flash-based video). I'd definitely prefer to see HTML 5 and SVG take off.

Re:Nothing Gorgeous About a Cruddy Plugin (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433810)

The Firefox crashes are fixed in the current version, plugins get their own executable which is simply relaunched when the plugin crashes =)

designer vs programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433684)

maybe that's the problem. today's web 2.0 crap is what happens when design is taken from the programmer and left with some neo-hippie (or an aging steve jobs type) who cares more about 'flash' than substance.

Counterpoint (3, Interesting)

clinko (232501) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433746)

My Counterpoint: The same article, with only 1 flash ad. Otherwise it's 28 Flash ads...

http://infoworld.com/print/125721 [infoworld.com]

Re:Counterpoint (5, Insightful)

wtmoose (639328) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433960)

Don't think for a minute that all these Flash ads won't be replaced by equivalent HTML5 ads.

Drop Dead (2, Insightful)

ismism (947992) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433786)

"Drop dead gorgeous" has nothing to do with the technology being used. That is the weakest argument yet for Flash.

Re:Drop Dead (2, Insightful)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434020)

"Drop dead gorgeous" has nothing to do with the technology being used.

The key is the ease of creating "drop dead gorgeous". An entrenched technology typically has the edge there unless its capabilities are surpassed, not merely matched.

After the /. front page comes up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433794)

...and I see my CPU getting hit hard (if only briefly) by an IBM ad whose sole purpose in using flash is to have a stupid fucking animation of absolutely no value to me, all I can think is FUCK FLASH. It is the bottom-feeding scum of the web, and I regularly force kill it to free up cycles. If only everyone would get away from it.

No mention of MSIE??? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433798)

I think the number one reason for not going to HTML5 is MSIE. Microsoft has no intention of creating a fully standards compliant browser. If they did that, they would likely also need to make their web based applications standards compliant and that would end their lock-in for Windows on the desktop and server where web applications are concerned. And MSIE is still the major browser out there.

Web developers don't like creating sites for MSIE and sites for others. It's lots of work. Just doing it in flash will assure that the flashy parts of the page will display well on all devices where HTML5 will not.

Now if by some miracle, Microsoft decides to change its selfish ways and gets compliant, that would be another thing entirely. But before anyone moves forward, something has to be done about the Microsoft problem.

Re:No mention of MSIE??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433852)

Flash forevah!

teeter-totter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433828)

'The designers will make the final determination.'
LOL bullsh*t.The designers don't mean crap in the equation. It is a balance of content providers and platforms. Those with critical mass will drive the technology. The designers will have to rush to the winning side to stay employed.

It's all about the development environment (2, Insightful)

sonciwind (970454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433844)

Someone comes up with an IDE that rivals the Flash tool set that uses HTML5 and Javascript and Flash is dead.

Re:It's all about the development environment (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433938)

I'm sure one is under development, but I'm also sure that it will not compete well until at least version 3. In other words, this war is far from over.

Re:It's all about the development environment (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434072)

It may not be sufficient to replace flash on day 1 for all applications but it will probably meet the needs of other systems engineers and application developers that flash cannot as easily realign to address. Such a tool could run in circles around flash gathering new applications, locking up small segments of the market, wounding it each time, until even the more general cases have been toppled. My point is, in your "version 3" scenario, by the time "version 3" comes out Adobe will have lost the war.

Re:It's all about the development environment (2, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434162)

That's assuming Adobe stands still while the other tools are progressing. I'm not rooting for Adobe, mind you, but I'm pretty sure they're not going down without a fight.

Besides, if Adobe retools their development applications to support multiple "back ends" such as SWF and HTML5/Javascript then it will be a win/win for them. People familiar with their tools will still buy them, which is, ultimately, what Adobe wants.

Re:It's all about the development environment (1)

sonciwind (970454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434108)

yeah, if "it's all over" depends upon something that will never happen. And I wouldn't be so sure one is even under development. All this time and all the Javascript development that has gone on. I don't think there is even one good Javascript development on par with "real" development language's IDEs. And Flash "script" style development environment would be even more specialized. So yeah, unless someone like Google or how about Symantec? steps up and creates something, browser independent, the was is far from over.

Re:It's all about the development environment (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434140)

Why Symantec? Also this could be an interesting thing for google to develop as part of their new chrome extension/add-on platform particularly if they come up with some nice AppEngine integration on the backend. It really only takes one killer app for something like this to be developed and gain traction and there are a few very well positioned companies out there to take advantage of such a development from both the development standpoint and the platform standpoint.

Tools (1)

HRbnjR (12398) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433858)

We just had an article [slashdot.org] showing how you can pretty much compile Flash to run as HTML5 - so, I think this is just arguing for better (Flash quality) authoring tools for HTML5 technology?

lynx (1)

skyggen (888902) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433862)

I'm still fighting javascript!

Why Flash is alive (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433870)

Flash is good in that you get a fast (ie interpreted bytecode if I'm getting it) app that draws stuff in the browser, but has additional "local" features available such as talking to some hardware.
The question now is: Do we need that - is that what we want on the web?
If the answer is yes, then let's build our own such thing, one whose spec will be free and entrusted to a consortium that will say what's in, and what's out.
Alternatively, use Java applets.

Also: why is there only javascript for client-side scripting? *shakes head*

Customers use HTML5 (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433880)

Developers will use what their customers use, and their customers use iPhones and iPads, which don't support Flash. Many major sites have already announced their HTML5 support, so I don't see why this guy is claiming developers are going to remain loyal when they're already moving over to HTML5.

Customers use Flash (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433948)

Developers will use what their customers use, and their customers use iPhones and iPads, which don't support Flash.

Developers will use what their customers use, and their customers use PCs running Windows and Internet Explorer 6, 7, or 8, which don't support HTML5 <canvas> but allow easy installation of Flash Player. Even IE 9 might not get <canvas> [freeciv.net] .

Re:Customers use Flash (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434204)

They they will end up supporting both.
I will bet that money that IE9 is going to get canvas because IE is loosing market share.
HTML5 really is the future it is just a matter of time before Flash is gone.

Form over Function (2, Insightful)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433890)

The biggest advantage that the new technologies have that flash has been trying very hard to get into is the ease with which interactive applications that integrate well with the browser and backend services can be developed without having to pay huge scaling licensing fees to anyone. The designers are certainly critical in making applications look good, but they don't get to decide what technologies the system is built on, they have to work with what they are given. If the requirements are that the webapp does X, Y and Z which flash cannot do, then it doesn't really matter what the designer would prefer to work with. They will be forced to work with what they are told to work with. If the need for good tools is great enough than the development of said tools will inevitably follow.

"drop-dead gorgeous Websites" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32433896)

speaking of "Websites" with a capital W, I only have one thing to say...

flashturbation

uh... no they won't. (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433924)

As long as Flash and its cousins Flex and Shockwave remain the simplest tools for producing drop-dead gorgeous Websites, they'll keep their place on the Internet.

[citation needed]

if HTML5 canvas with javascript wasn't worth using, then why did adobe already update their products to export to them?

i don't view the web using a flash browser, i use an HTML browser... HTML will obviously win.

No longer "play everywhere" (1)

moria (829831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433934)

The mobile web is getting an increasingly larger chunk of the pie. And in the predictable feature, the majority of the mobile web will be not flash-capable (think iPhone OS, the majority of Symbian). So, no, flash is not "write once, play everywhere" any longer.

One advantage to flash that few think of (1)

teg (97890) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433944)

Flash being a plugin has one big advantage - it can be filtered. This allows me to avoid the most annoying ads - those with sound and animation. And for those sites that need it, I can turn it on. If/when everything is HTML, separating content and annoying extras will be a lot harder.

NoScript (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433986)

Flash being a plugin has one big advantage - it can be filtered. This allows me to avoid the most annoying ads - those with sound and animation. And for those sites that need it, I can turn it on.

NoScript being an addon has one big advantage - script can be filtered. This allows me to avoid the most annoying ads - those with <audio> sound and <video> or <canvas> animation. And for those sites that need it, I can turn it on.

Who's in charge here anyway? (4, Insightful)

kenaaker (774785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433952)

I started to pray that Flash would die as soon as they took away the user controls that let me stop the idiotic flickering, bouncing, annoying ads.

Here's my two cases (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32433994)

Here's my two cases for Flash:

Homestar Runner [homestarrunner.com]
MS Paint Adventures [mspaintadventures.com] (the current story, Homestuck, has some amazing timed animation/music segments done in Flash)

Now, yes, Flash could be replaced with someone else. But, as of right now, the animations are done in Flash, not anything else, and I'm still going to visit them (Well, maybe not H*R if they keep not updating, but the long-awaited End of Act 4 for Homestuck ought to be awesome.) There need to be the tools to do the animation work that are as good (to the artists/etc.) as Flash, not just the capacity to play them back.

"As long as..." (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434014)

'As long as Flash and its cousins Flex and Shockwave remain the simplest tools for producing drop-dead gorgeous Websites, they'll keep their place on the Internet.'

Well that seems to be the main point right there. It's about the tools, not the tech.

So let there be tools. Nice ones. I personally find working in Flash a pain, because I don't like the tools that much. But then, I'm working with an Eclipse plugin.

deltree Infoworld (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32434016)

"But while SVG is impressive, it's still a long way from efficient, thanks to all of the extra characters the XML standard insists upon..."

Thats stupidity of the same order as the "tubes" comment and as hilarious as "i can tell because of the pixels, and i've seen a lot of 'shops...".

1) I stopped reading at that point, and it was in the first paragraph.
2) It is InfoWorld. Garbage is expected.

The article is just a troll. I would love a /. filter that removes all stories that reference certain websites, just as much as it is needed on digg and google. Certain sites never have any worthy content, and really don't even need to be seen no matter what the search.

We just hate flash! (4, Insightful)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434074)

How about flash sucks because it doesn't include a volume controls by default?

That's all it takes to trump that idiotic article.

Don't get me wrong, there are many other reasons to hate flash, (Including some of the reasons identified in the article as reasons to use flash: Flash's sub-pixel resolution and anti-aliasing and Flash's supercool fonts ) and that's not even the biggest one. But its more than adequate to just beg for that POS to die.

Argument against stagnation in IT (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434082)

Flash isn't going away anytime soon.

That being said, HTML5 is the future. CLIs for consumer OSes went away for the large part, but they're still around. Batch mode processing went away for the large part, but it's still around. Procedural programming went away for the large part, but it's still around. Java for interactive web interfaces went away for the large part, but Java for the front end is still around.

All of these things have found niches somewhere. Sometimes due to stubbornness of developers, sometimes out of sheer necessity. Some problems are entirely procedural, and really can't be object oriented. Some problems are best left to go into a batch. Java as a browser front end is still around because some developers aren't comfortable with AJAX and dynamic HTML or comfortable with Flash.

Now it's Flash's turn to go away for the large part.

Damning with faint praise (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434086)

Reason No. 5: Flash is write once, play everywhere. Flash 10 support on Wii? Nope. Flash support on Nintendo DS? Nope? Flash 10 support on Android 1.6? Nope. Flash support on iPhone/iPad? Nope. There's everything from Flash 7 to Flash 10 out there in the field; saying you can write something for Flash ten and have it "play everywhere" is blatant bullshit. Plus, some devices simply don't have enough memory to run bloated Flash apps! Flash apps takes a long time to load because they are BIG. Sure, embedding fonts in the app is a great idea -- if you don't care how big the app is.

Write once, run only (well) on Windows (1)

pjrc (134994) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434126)

I really wish flash advocates would stop saying "write once, run anywhere" until Adobe actually releases a Linux flash player with quality on par with the Windows version!

Truly, if you're a Flash developer/designer/artist who only tests on Windows, and there obviously MANY out there, you have no idea what a completely buggy piece of shit Abobe's Flash is on Linux. On all but the largest of sites, even trying to play video on many sites other than youtube and vimeo, Flash regularly crashes the entire browser. Yeah, Linux API are a moving target and audio is notoriously messed up, but there's no reason any plugin should ever completely lock up the browser, ever!

In reality, Adobe Flash is "write once, runs well only on Windows".

As a Linux user, I'm glad Apple is causing Adobe so much pain and I hope the horrible code that is non-Windows Flash becomes unnecessary someday. Alternately, Adobe could write a quality Flash player for Linux, but that seems to have a snowball's change in hell, especially with this horribly wrong mindset that Flash actually works well on anything other than Microsoft Windows!

Consistency (1)

gmurray (927668) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434152)

I think there is something to be said in a single sandboxed platform like Flash/Silverlight being available on all hardware types to bring a guaranteed level of consistency/performance across the board. If someone designs an app in flash/silverlight/etc. they know with high certainty that it will perform and look the same way on all platforms supported by the plugin. If history is to be trusted for extrapolative purposes, the various HTML5 implementations will not offer that kind of consistency. Although, since many of the browsers use the same engines nowadays this problem is somewhat mitigated. Still, I like Adoble/Microsoft having great incentive to make sure that Flash/Silverlight content displays the same on all platforms. The browsers don't really have the same incentives. Their perfect, desired situation is to have their rendering of HTML5 vary slightly from the other contenders, and hold enough marketshare that web content is designed around their quirks, and not their competitors quirks. Its a bit of a conflict of interest, IMO.

Flash haters: please help the Gallery team (1)

sremick (91371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434172)

Those of you who hate Flash on the internet and are good with HTML5 and JavaScript really need to head on over and help out the team working on Gallery:

http://gallery.menalto.com/ [menalto.com]

For the second time now, they've given up trying to do things "right" using Javascript and are throwing in the towel to implement core functionality using Flash instead:

http://gallery.menalto.com/thanks_adobe_flash_builder [menalto.com]

They claim they just don't have the skills or manpower to figure out how to make Javascript do what they want, so they're just using Flash since it's easier. I'm not the only Gallery user to have grave concerns about this trend.

Eyeballs, not tools, will determine the outcome (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434178)

Though much of his reasoning is sound, I'm not sure I agree with the author's conclusion. My reasoning for expecting it to go differently is fairly simple: while Flash blockers are generally the most popular plug-ins for any browser that has the option, you generally don't see many HTML blocking extensions in a web browser. Once the corp. world realizes that, I believe value of increased eye-balls-on-ads will be the dominant factor even though Designers will have to re-tool.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>