General discussion

... and the dominos begin to fall for Flash

I never would have guessed this would have happened as quickly as it did:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/netflix-ipad-app-now-available-in-the-app-store/

So now with Netflix, You Tube, ABC, CBS, Pandora, Last FM, the NYT, the WSJ (plus Hulu... as rumored by the WSJ) all changing their sites to support HTML 5 or producing native iPad apps, why exactly do we need flash again? Vimeo, maybe but with all the rest onboard how long before they follow suit. Other than the above listed use cases, I can;t think of a single use of flash that I actually care about.

I say good riddance to dancing monkey mortgage advertisements and bootyliscious splash pages for trendy restaurants and boutique hotels.

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: ... and the dominos begin to fall for Flash
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: ... and the dominos begin to fall for Flash
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Years away...

That's the mantra I'm hearing about HTML-5 full browser support, and without full browser support by the major players --including IE-- no serious website would ditch a universal (save for Apple's ludicrous position) format for HTML-5-only.

Seriously...every current user with a browser would have to update to something that supported HTML-5. As evidenced by the numbers of individuals still using IE6, that's no easy feat. So, this changeover is going to take awhile. We're still going to have flash around for some time to come.

- Collapse -
Alas, poor Flash! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite

Alas, poor Flash! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

Flash is toast, done, killed. Yes the corpse is still warm, but still...

So IE is the reason you think Flash is going to be okay? The web is moving, from your PC screen to mobile, most often WebKit.

So what's a site to do? Easy; check to see if the browser is modern, if it isn't then fall back to Flash.

If Adobe have any sense at all, they will make the Flash development tools be able to create JavaScript/HTML5 solutions in addition to Flash. Let's hope for their sake they've seen this coming and will have this new "Flashless, Flash" ready before content creators learn to live in a Post-Flash world.

- Collapse -
I didn't say Flash would be ok

IE is still by far the most widely-used browser in the world --particularly in the U.S. I do agree wholeheartedly that smart websites will include code for HTML-5 and Flash for this long transition period. But for a major website like youtube to totally ditch Flash immediately without providing a fall back? That's totally unreasonable from a business standpoint. But hey, no one said everyone was smart business-wise. But we are talking about Google here.

I have heard that Adobe is doing something on the HTML-5 front re: Flash. Obviously they see the future for what it is.

In the meantime, here's what their CTO said in February:

"Adobe supports HTML and its evolution and we look forward to adding more capabilities to our software around HTML as it evolves. If HTML could reliably do everything Flash does that would certainly save us a lot of effort, but that does not appear to be coming to pass. Even in the case of video, where Flash is enabling over 75% of video on the Web today, the coming HTML video implementations cannot agree on a common format across browsers, so users and content creators would be thrown back to the dark ages of video on the Web with incompatibility issues."

- Collapse -
I never said they would replace flash

I said that flash support is quickly becoming a non-issue. I don't think anyone would be naive enough to think that flash will die overnight. But alternatives are coming on fast, way faster than I believe anyone expected. It looks like Apple hardline stance is actually paying off. Other devices will be able to benefit from the change as well.

And I couldn't be happier. I'm tired of a sloppy, processor taxing standard that heats up my laptop and drains my battery. I was really bummed about the lack of Netflix on the iPad, but now that's a non issue. In all honestly, I'm really shocked Apple allowed it in the store considering it directly competes with iTunes. Lets hope this is a sign of things to come with Amazon and Barnes and Noble eBook apps.

- Collapse -
Couple of things...

You did say "why exactly do we need flash again?" That's a question posed in the current tense, and it's been answered. Additionally, I'm not here as a Flash advocate! I don't like sites built on Flash! I'm just being pragmatic about its future.

As Mark Twain once said (and even he eventually died) "The report of my death was an exaggeration." I think we're at the same stage with Flash. Sure, it's terminal. But then, so is nearly everything technological, particularly in the computing world.

- Collapse -
The key word was "need". With the alternatives that

are popping up, is flash a necessity or just one format amongst several others? Perhaps I should have phrased it like this: "how does the lack of Flash support on a device really matter now that there are alternatives for the most popular flash delivered content"?

Because, in my opinion, once you take Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Vimeo, Pandora, and Last FM out of the picture there really aren't whole lot of critical, must-have flash sites left. Mostly, I see a bunch of annoying animated ads and splash screens that needlessly slow you down.

- Collapse -
HTML5 itself is not the whole answer...it's the codecs

I'm not the expert on this, but from what I can see/read, HTML5 merely provides the browser the capability to render inline video/audio without external plugins (e.g. Flash). However, like anything else in life, there's more to it than that. There's the required codec debate. Google/Apple are promoting a commercially licensed fee-based codec --H.264-- for video, while Mozilla/Opera want an open-source alternative, Theora. And where's Microsoft in the mix?

Here's a good explanation from ars technica about the debate. It is from July of 09, so somethings may have changed, but not from what I see the CTO of Adobe saying as late as February:

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5-video-codec-debate.ars

- Collapse -
It's gonna be H264

It's a better codec and it's got the best support. The real question is what is going to happen with the patent license as Mozilla can't afford H264.

- Collapse -
it amazing how much faster pages load without flash

I started using clicktoflash (flash blocker) and pages load much faster, initially I check out some of the blocked flash boxes (mainly ad's), now i ignore them completely. Check out youtube with HTML5 and you'll notice a huge difference in speed.

- Collapse -
Here here!

Flash is awful. Proprietary, buggy and a bloated CPU battery life sucking hog.
Of course... this doesn't change the fact that cnet live won't work on an iPad or iPhone...

- Collapse -
Actually, CNET is being optimized for HTML 5 as we speak

CBS will follow soon. This is according to the BOL crew last week. Flash versions will still be available of course, but if your browser supports HTML 5 CNET will soon take advantage of it.

CNET Forums

Forum Info