

The HTML5 and Flash Debate from a Flash Developer's Perspective - lancer383
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVjIsL8qwNw

======
raimondious
The most important part is when he shows a <canvas> demo running poorly and
says something along the lines of "in my day to day work, I can't use this. It
won't work as a solution."

The debate right now is one side saying you should use "HTML5" because it's
more open than Flash while Flash is buggy, bloated, and proprietary. The other
side is saying "I need Flash to give my clients what they want." Just like
people started using CSS over table-based layouts when it was pragmatic,
people will stop using Flash when Flash stops being the best tool for the job.
There's nothing wrong with that.

~~~
not_an_alien
Yes, they will. It's a big "when" though.

I work with Flash and I don't think it's buggy or bloated - that's overblown.
It's not perfect, but it's definitely much better than people paint it to be
(specially people who don't work with it).

In the same vein, HTML5/canvas is unreliable both in terms of performance,
adoption, and consistency among different environments. People like to think
of "standards", but when it requires as much hacks as any other 'standard'
work nowadays do, and when it's not even available in half the browsers out
there, I wonder how can anyone think it's the golden goose people like to
claim it is.

~~~
lukifer
> I work with Flash and I don't think it's buggy or bloated - that's
> overblown.

Depends if you're using Windows or not. On Mac and Linux, the performance and
reliability are pretty bad (compared to other modern software, anyway).

------
glhaynes
Seems humorously apropos that it's in 10 minute long Flashy (errr HTML5y)
video format rather than skimmable text as I'd prefer.

~~~
BoppreH
I don't think he would be able to show the performance of HTML5 and Flash
demos using text, even when coupled with some images. For that it requires
video, and I prefer a single video showing all the "article" and demos
together than clicking _play_ on five or six different embedded players.

------
WiseWeasel
Useless FUD. Yes, let's compare a 15-year-old mature platform to one in its
infancy, and dismiss the latter on grounds of the performance of its more
esoteric features. We get it, Flash developers fear change; cry me a river.
Considering the relative rates of progress of Adobe, the only company that can
advance the Flash platform, and every other tech company in existence
currently working on HTML5, I know where the safer bet five years from now is,
barring Adobe doing something smart and opening up the Flash runtime. So HTML5
is still rough around the edges, big surprise there.

The fact is, for video playback, it does just fine today, even on limited
mobile devices, and if sites were to only replace Flash with HTML5 for video
and audio playback, we're talking about 90% of Flash's popular use right
there. As HTML5 matures, including content creation tools and the performance
of various browser runtime implementations, it'll eat into Flash's share for
other tasks as well. Apple is creating a market demand for HTML5 development
tools and expertise, which is the first necessary step in order to bring the
platform to maturity. After that happens, Flash developers will jump on board
and forget this thing ever happened. Until then, just keep coding your crappy
Flash ads and leave the rest of us who actually want some progress for the
open web alone.

~~~
ThomPete
Yes lets compare them. Why shouldn't we?

The mature platform and an immature platform.

HTML5 holds promise but it's simply not capable of delivering anything close
to what the flash platform can.

Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. Let it naturally
outperform flash once it's better, nothing hinders that.

So if you believe HTML5 will be better then let it prove itself.

So far it's no where near.

~~~
WiseWeasel
My point is that HTML5 does do SOME things better, some things that Flash is
quite commonly used for, like video playback without pegging my CPU quite as
much. To say that all of HTML5 is useless because it doesn't replace Flash for
games or because Canvas and SVG browser support aren't quite up to snuff, is
idiotic. That support will come, and HTML5 will become a practical replacement
for those functions as well at some point. For now, people will keep using
Flash for that, and figuring out something else for iDevices. Adobe Flash CS5
can already export to Canvas, so the content creation support is obviously on
its way. Flash isn't the end-all web platform either, and webGL can do many
things in 3D that Flash developers could only dream of. Flash has its place,
but that place is at the periphery, not the core of the web; Flash-only sites
deserve to die in a fire. To think that HTML5 will stand still now that
there's a market pressure to support it is incredibly short-sighted.

~~~
ThomPete
You should really learn to put forward your claims without having to resort to
strawmen. Who said HTML5 was useless? No one did.

That you get better performance with video using HTML5 does little to remedy
the fact that playback of video is really all you can do.

You try and seamlessly integrate video, with logic, dynamic text, vectors in
HTML5 and you will be pretty disappointed.

The Flash isn't the be all end all. But what it does it does so many times
better than HTML5 for quite some time.

~~~
WiseWeasel
I agree that Flash is better for many things, that the tools that support the
format support greater capabilities, especially for things like access to
webcam and mic hardware, and obviously 2D and extremely basic 3D interactive
games and presentations, and Flash will likely be better for some or all of
these things for a while longer. But I also think Flash is widely abused, with
ads and other site elements doing things like playing videos or animations and
consuming resources (precious on mobile devices) without user intervention,
and worst of all designing entire site interfaces in Flash with no HTML fall-
back. I support what Apple is doing because it really forces site operators to
reevaluate how deeply they rely on Flash for their web presence, and because
it drives the development of content creation tools that support HTML5
content, as well as progress in browser support. I acknowledge that it's
painful to undertake a transition like this, especially as you've got clients
asking why they have to pay this much more to get their content on iDevices
now. But in the end, we get a more open web, which means more user control
over the experience, which is a good thing for users like you and me.

~~~
ThomPete
Given the CPU usage of the HTML5 examples shown in the video it seems like
Flash is not alone with that problem.

With regards to designing entire sites in flash. Go to thefwa.com check out
some of the sites on that portal. Then tell me why you would want an HTML
fallback for that? That is kind of like saying that all video should have
transcription of what is being said.

Sometimes there is no substitute.

With regards to the open web argument. Since we are in agreement that Flash
isn't the be all end all of the web, then what is the problem?

If HTML5 is better then it will eventually outcompete FLASH. Until it is,
support both. That is what I don't understand with Apples claims.

HTML5 is right now rather resource intensive as shown in the video. It
actually going to be worse for the battery life of an iPad than flash is.

It's a hollow argument.

~~~
WiseWeasel
At least any browser developer can do something about the HTML5 performance
characteristics, including giving their users greater control over activation
of certain elements on platforms where that may be especially critical, such
as ones where you don't want to be wasting batteries on content you didn't
care about seeing in the first place, like ads. Only Adobe can fix Flash's
issues, and they've not done a great job so far.

As for that site you linked, you may want to find a better example. All that
stuff seems relatively straightforward to implement in CSS/javascript and
Canvas, and that would probably be much less painful to actually use, if
possibly more effort to create. That site was a terrible experience, and a
perfect example of why encouraging this kind of behavior by web developers a
bad idea.

~~~
tomlin
WiseWeasel, dude, you're all over the place. Like many of the "vs." crowd. I
am gonna hit all of your points, so you don't Republican the debate.

ThomPete - you're a voice of reason and contemporary fact.

To the "vs." crowd: try and read all the points; not skimming and then
commenting without paying the respect to do some legwork.

* ads - HTML5 ads will exist. The easier they are to make, the more of them there will be. Advertisers will use whichever has the widest audience. In fact, advertisers will be more encouraged by all the circle-jerk mob-mentality surrounding HTML5.

* video playback - for one, HTML5 doesn't play better or with less CPU. I think about 10 or so YouTube videos have proven this (visually, not blog opinion rhetoric). I'd link a few to you, but let's face it...you're not gonna look at them. You'd be forced to see proof. (If you do manage to be overcome with a neutral state of mind, do some research)

* cpu - another red herring. So far, I've not seen 1 canvas+js example (of which has a close equal to a Flash equivalent) that outperforms Flash. I wouldn't expect it to, either, since Flash is compiled and JS is interpreted. Bottomline: an immersive experience is going to take some CPU. Realize it applies to all technologies and get over it.

* ipad/mobile - Flash depletes battery. I agree. Equivalent canvas+js experiences use similar CPU. Taking that into consideration...the battery specifically hates Flash? Please.

* greater control/poor coding - Do I really need to point out that this applies to everything? Not just Flash?

Let's consider that HTML5 is being implemented in 2010. I've been on the 'net
since 1995. That's 15 years for video to make its way into the browser --
without the "dreaded" plugin tech.

You know what's dreaded? Not being able to move ahead at the speed necessary
to make great, immersive experiences. Being tied to a set of slow,
archaically-driven, standards.

Flash (or more specifically plugin arch) is a petri dish for the web's
innovative future. It can't and shouldn't die. If anything, it should become
more open, more accepted and more accessible.

~~~
WiseWeasel
I'd be fine with it being open. I'm just very happy to see a vendor push
website operators to not completely rely on Flash, a proprietary plugin
controlled by Adobe. If Adobe were to open up the Flash runtime, I would have
zero issue with it, and I'd even wager that Apple would turn themselves around
on the issue. To have the entire web at the mercy of Adobe is a bit much for
me to swallow. Flash is great at a few things, but websites completely reliant
on it needed a swift kick in the pants.

~~~
tomlin
I agree with what you're saying.

However, I am alright with a website being 100% reliant on Flash just as I am
alright with a website being 100% reliant on video. The key issue here is
openness, not platform.

------
emehrkay
I'm not going to comment on the subject matter, but this guy is pissed. You
can tell by his nervousness -- shows that he is passionate about his tools.
Good for him

~~~
WiseWeasel
Or it shows that he's freaking out, because some people are telling him he's
hitched his cart to a dying horse, and trying his best to rationalize them
away.

~~~
tomlin
Flash developers (read: not designers hacking together an intro/banner) don't
care if the Flash technology dies.

Flash developers want the development experience that Flash offers. HTML5
doesn't offer it...yet. When it does, I personally would love to migrate to
it.

Your assumptions are pitiful and illogical.

~~~
ThomPete
Exactly my thoughts.

Let HTML5 prove itself instead of insisting that it's better because it's
open.

That isn't an argument anyone outside academia can afford making.

------
tomlin
The "vs." crowd won't watch/care for this. It has proof in it.

------
silentium
wasted 10 min of lifetime. Really useless ...

~~~
lancer383
I found it to be pretty interesting.

I tend to fall on Apple's side when it comes to not wanting to be forced to
support a technology that it is against. That being said, seeing the CPU usage
on these simple HTML5/JS games was a bit shocking - no idea if that is due to
sub-standard coding, or if it's inherent in JS, but it seems to blow a hole in
the "Flash is a resource hog" argument.

I am wondering if better developer tools for creating graphical HTML5/JS
and/or JIT compilation will help with this. Clearly an iPhone is capable of
amazing things graphically, but that's all been on the native app side.

~~~
technomancy
> I tend to fall on Apple's side when it comes to not wanting to be forced to
> support a technology that it is against.

How is that Apple's side? Allowing something to be installed is not by any
means the same as being "forced to support" it.

~~~
lancer383
Apple does allow Flash to be installed on Mac OS X, and actually includes it
with the OS.

Right now there is not a way to "install" something on iPhone OS that would
then become available to Safari and other apps. To do that, they'd have to
build a plug-in architecture for iPhone OS.

------
icefox
so.... flash developers are to 'cool' to write things down? Are the people
upvoting this actually watching it???

~~~
ilike
It is more of a (biased?) demonstration than a debate, and obviously video is
a better choice.

