I for one, see no problem with a properly done flash project (not bad amateur work). We can argue open-ness, but realistically it amazes me that everyone is wishing for something that already exists!
Safari 3.1 already supported most things (4 is still missing WebSockets). Firefox 3.5 (out soon) is a massive update to add missing HTML5 features and their updates are automatic and very transparent.
You can start doing HTML5 today and be assured that a nontrivial portion of your audience will support it out-of-box when 3.5 rolls around.
There's also been various talks about replacing the Javascript engine in IE (ScreamingMonkey project), ActiveX video/audio players using Ogg codecs, Google's got a project to implement Canvas in IE and an unreleased one implemeting SVG using IE's VML support etc.
A surprising number of things can be achieved with Javascript shims.
Flexbuilder (now Flashbuilder) is nice because you can easily switch between the source code and design/layout view. It also takes care of all the build dependencies.
For pure programmers this isn't a big deal but for someone who is more design oriented, it's a lot easier.
I think Flex trades off user experience to make developers' lives easier though. That's never the right choice IMHO.
Every Flex app I've seen, no matter how simple, starts with a "Loading" popup. Flex apps also notoriously overreach by reimplementing everything in Flash rather than use HTML where appropriate. It's great to have good tools, but they should never produce an inferior product.
I think what he meant was a text editor is useless for frame-based animation. Flash programmers are "visual programmers." I don't think there's any good way (at least not now) to program animations without a visual ide -- and I don't mean simple transitions in a javascript webapp.
I wish. Flash will continue working on IE 6 and other older browsers though. Until all the browsers you want to support have HTML 5 implemented (correctly), you're going to have to either use Flash or some hybrid/piecemeal solution.
Not only that, creating animations in Flash tend to be a lot faster than anything else. Very often at my job we opt to use Flash for things that could technically be done with straight HTML/CSS/JS, simply because the former would take orders of magnitude less time to create (and that time can be invested into polishing, etc).
Not to mention the size. A HTML + CSS + JS (jQuery) implementation of a simple component such as a menu would end up being ~50KB. In flash it turns out to be less than 1KB.
The answer is Yes. The real question is 'when?'. My guess is it will take some time before Flash and its competitors finally join the dinosaurs. It will be slowed down by html5 adoption and by the need for tools/libraries that take canvas to the level of what flash can do today.
Silverlight might not make it.
Flash will be fine. The Flex + AIR combination is pretty solid, and I'm looking forward what we[my company] can do with AIR once we get our application rewritten in Flex.
Radio, the death of newspapers?
Television, the death of radio?
Internet TV, the death of television?
Silverlight, the death of flash?
HTML 5, the death of flash AND silverlight?
To be fair HTML5 and Flash/Silverlight aren't really comparable to the different media formats. They're just different ways of doing the exact same thing. It'd be more like analog vs. digital.
Telegram as media... Encoding messages to be transmitted point-to-point long distances over copper wire. If anything it just evolved telegram > ticker tape > computer networks. Signal fires > road flares. Smoke signal's > Rescue flares given to pilots etc.
Protocol's might die (Apple Talk, Analog TV), but technology's tend to just find a niche.
"Google may also face some touchy decisions. For example, its YouTube subsidiary uses Flash for its video, but the inclusion of HTML 5 capabilities in browsers might cause YouTube to rethink that decision, notes Fette. "It's a cost/benefit analysis that they'd need to make."
I know Yahoo! doesn't like to drink the Google koolaid, but they should have at least paid attention to the fact that Google has been converting the video on YouTube from FLV to H.264 for some time now. They launched it alongside iPhone (no flash player there, remember?)
If HTML5 got enough momentum, you'd see the FLV content on YouTube disappear overnight.
Silverlight allows .Net developers to target a Rich web interface from Visual Studio. If you program in windows, you'll naturally choose Silverlight. If you want to develop using open standards, you'll choose html 5. Flash will be gone.
Why do you assume programming in windows == microsoft affinity. Im a windows man and am openly anti silverlight. I am actually amazed its survived this long...
