

The HTML5 boom is coming. Fast - ekm
http://gigaom.com/2011/07/22/the-html5-boom-is-coming-fast/

======
untog
'HTML5' is losing all meaning and just becoming a buzzword.

 _"HTML5 is not just going to be big, it’s going to be huge — and it’s coming
fast.

More than 2.1 billion mobile devices will have HTML5 browsers by 2016, up from
just 109 million in 2010"_

No, more than 2.1 billion mobile devices will have _web browsers_. Yes,
they'll use HTML5 but the figure is significant because of users gaining
access to the 'full web' on fast 3G connections- that has nothing to do with
HTML5.

 _"Much of this growth will be thanks to Apple’s massive support for the HTML5
platform, according to the study. And Apple is also likely to be one of the
biggest beneficiaries of the technology’s wide scale adoption. "_

Actually I'd argue that Apple has done some of the biggest damage in harming
HTML5 adoption. Their refusal to make HTML5 a first-class citizen in the app-
writing world (and Android is equally as guilty of this) means that people are
still being funneled through Objective-C pathways, locking their apps into the
iOS platform.

 _"Because Apple has so much control over its software and devices, it will be
most poised to take full advantage of HTML features as they emerge in the
coming years."_

Or, they'll be poised to take full advantage of their market position and make
it very difficult to write any kind of cross-platform app. We'll see.

~~~
drivebyacct2
While I don't disagree that the term "HTML5" is overused... I thought it was
obvious that the expansion of "HTML5 browsers" was in reference to well
performing and compliant WebKit browsers that can leverage the richer and more
featureful... features of HTML5.

I also don't see how the native platforms in iOS or Android impede anyone's
ability to use purely web technologies. At all. I find that to be a
disingenuous or at least off topic insult.

> _Or, they'll be poised to take full advantage of their market position and
> make it very difficult to write any kind of cross-platform app. We'll see._

Are you trying to imply that Apple is going to disregard the HTML5 specs or
fork it in some way that makes web apps for Android and iOS incompatible? I
guess I don't understand where you're coming from... at all.

~~~
untog
_> At all. I find that to be a disingenuous or at least off topic insult._

Is it even possible to _insult_ a multinational company?

My point is that the article suggests that Apple is a big friend to HTML5, and
that the growth of HTML5 will be in large part due to Apple's "massive
support". I do not believe that Apple is a "massive" supporter of HTML5.

Apple's first priority is securing their own walled garden, not HTML5. HTML5
and its associated technologies are capable of creating fully-featured,
offline-capable web apps that work on a variety of smartphone platforms with
minimal changes. Apple will not allow such submissions into the App Store, and
instead channels users towards an Objective-C, Apple-only path. They are pro-
HTML5 when it suits them (fighting against Adobe) but when it threatens their
walled garden, they discard it.

It isn't my intention to single them out in this- Google is just a bad with
Android, as is MS with Windows Phone. The only reason I'm focusing on Apple is
because the original article made them out to be a big flag-waver for HTML5,
and I think _that_ is disingenuous.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Again, how is having a native platform in any way shape or form hostile
towards HTML5? The _only_ possible way I could understand your paranoia was
before Apple turned on Nitro for their embedded web views. Now that they've
done that, there's simply no reason to believe that they would deprecate their
browser or fork HTML5.

Besides the article doesn't say that they're a big supporter (though I think
they are: WebKit, Safari, Mobile WebKit, millions of iOS devices, etc) of
HTML5... it simply says they are putting capable browsers in the hands of
users.

>Apple will not allow such submissions into the App Store

A false accusation, and more importantly... HTML5 applications using those
technologies would not even [need to or benefit from] be submitted through the
App Store. That's the entire point. What are you even talking about? The only
way your argument makes any sense is if you're implying that Apple scrap
Mobile Webkit, remove Mobile Safari, or intentionally REGRESS their own mobile
browser to prevent native-app-like-features from HTML5... which, I'm sorry,
but I find to be a ludicrous assertion.

Who isn't bad in your scenarios? Every platform in existence has a native
layer in it that you could "cite". If it weren't for Google (Android, Chrome,
WebKit), Apple (WebKit, Safari, Mobile Safari) and Microsoft (IE9, Mobile
IE9), we wouldn't even be speaking hypothetically about web apps as the
future, as they'd be impossible!

~~~
untog
At this point I really don't know what to reply- I really don't understand how
on earth you'd read the comment I posted and interpret it as "Apple should
scrap Mobile Webkit". You seem to have interpreted my comments to be _the
exact opposite_ of what I was actually saying. How does "I think Apple are
holding back HTML5" (my original comment) end up meaning "I want Apple to
remove HTML5 features from their phones"?

There is no reason why App Store apps could not be written with HTML5. It
works offline. It has local storage. Apps written in such a way could work on
iOS, Android, WM, WebOS... the whole lot. Yet they are not allowed in the App
Store (or Android Market, etc. etc.)- this holds back HTML5. (and _of course_
they would benefit from it- users go straight to the App Store to download
apps. Offline web sites just don't have the same understanding)

I am not suggesting that the manufacturers throw out their existing native
layers- there are times (3D games, etc) where they are entirely appropriate.
But while they are the _only_ option, developers are forced into walled
gardens when writing apps. I can't work out how anyone would perceive that as
a good thing.

~~~
drivebyacct2
I really don't mean to sound rude, but you're not reading what I'm writing and
I'm honestly not sure that you understand HTML5 or the capabilities that
current mobile devices have in the HTML5 front.

You can absolutely publish fully functional HTML5 apps right now and any user
on any mobile platform can use them. Even more, you can make simple Web View
wrapper and publish them to Market, App Store, etc. Surely, surely, you're not
really sitting there saying they have to build some new manifest and packaging
format to support web apps... in their NATIVE application store, right? The
entire point of web apps is that you don't need the concept of an "app". The
app is the webpage as it's displayed in the browser. If you want to avoid that
perception issue, then use an embedded web view wrapper.

My point was that all of these functionalities and abilities are in existence
RIGHT NOW in (at least) the WebKit browsers. You're acting like it's not
possible now, or that it won't be in the future. My point was that your
accusations imply that Apple/Google/etc will, at some point in the future, go
back and remove the Location API or Local Storage APIs or future Device APIs
from their browsers... (since that's the only way your accusations make any
sense).

You continue to act like the native platform or native app store somehow
impedes the ability to use the browser or web views, which is just either
above my head or just plain wrong.

~~~
untog
"My point was that your accusations imply that Apple/Google/etc will, at some
point in the future, go back and remove the Location API or Local Storage APIs
or future Device APIs from their browsers..."

Throughout this entire discourse (and I'd challenge the claim that you've
"tried to be nice", unless you just didn't try very hard) you've thrown out
various accusations of what I think, then dismantled them- despite me having
never suggesting anything of the sort in the first place.

Why on earth would I accuse Apple/Google of planning to remove HTML5 APIs? I
genuinely have no idea why you are projecting these ideas. My point is that
HTML5 could be a first-class citizen when it comes to app making. It is not.
And the fault for that lies with the phone manufacturers. Therefore, in my
mind, Apple does not have "massive support" for HTML5.

But hey, let's leave it here, while you're trying to be nice. I'm not sure I'm
interested in finding out how condescending you'll be when you aren't.

------
timmyd
It's amazing how - I think at least - the web is moving away from framework
based technologies to HTML, CSS and Javacsript as primary sources. Indeed,
Windows 8 is pushing support for such technologies and actually supporting a
move away from framework based technologies to the HCJ combo. Even now with
the popularity of HTML5 API's and NodeJS - the push away from traditional
frameworks is becomming evident. Just look at Silverlight/Flash as sources of
this - MSFT touted Silverlight as the "new future" and now its all but giving
it the big middle finger.

Is this a good thing ? I think that Google and Apple are intent on killing
Microsoft and Adobe respectively and they believe the best way is to strike at
their respective hearts is by reducing their core platform reliance. I'm not
necessarily of the view this is the best way forward, and data security and
privacy laws having a long way to go before we all start using "Chrome Books".
I just sometimes wonder whether Google/Apple self-interest in pushing ahead
HTML5 is, and will, benefit the developer community as a whole in development
of web technologies or rather create some sort of HCJ hybrid "gadget" '@web
application@' community.

Further, I'm not always convinced that writing lines of HTML5 and Javascript
will replace the eons of work [flagrant exaggeration intended] that has gone
into traditional languages. Just like the HTML4 spec, it will be a while
before the HTML5 spec is "truly adopted". A simple DocType switch and you're
"technically" in HTML5.

"The HTML5 boom is coming. Fast" - maybe it is, but I don't know whether that
represents the "super exciting" future we all dream of - or whether it
represents a flood of new poor constructed web technologies aiming to be the
next "Facebook". Call me a cynic - I just think we need to preserve our roots
as much as we do need to forge a better web future.

~~~
andypants
What do you mean by 'framework based technologies'?

There are many kinds of frameworks in many languages and technologies.

~~~
metajack
I believe he meant technologies that have the bulk of their logic server side,
as opposed to on the client side (ie, old Twitter vs. new Twitter).

------
Andrex
The iOS and Android browsers have laughable HTML5 support. On paper they may
seem OK, but implementations are highly buggy at best. (Speaking from the
perspective as an HTML5 game dev.)

WP7 might be the first to have a good default browser for HTML5, and that kind
of dumbfounds me. Get on the ball, Apple and Google. I know it's in your best
interests to keep the more powerful stuff out of your mobile browsers, but the
sooner the better.

~~~
wdewind
Totally possible that when you get down and dirty with games they are not
great, but from the perspective of a general web dev they are awesome and let
you do any of the standard things you'd want to on the desktop side with ease
(again, talking about regular web apps here, not games).

~~~
Andrex
True. But the buggy stuff for games is still stuff the mobile web apps can use
to enhance themselves, and bring them closer to native apps in features and
even performance.

------
dmix
Youtube's HTML5 player is still very alpha and poorly designed (still no
fullscreen?). It has hardly changed in over a year since it was released.

I question Google/Youtube's commitment to moving to HTML5.

~~~
untog
AFAIK, it isn't possible to watch fullscreen video in HTML5. At least, not in
the way you with Flash.

~~~
windsurfer
Go to <http://teevox.com> and press F11. Works fine. Youtube could easily have
a "full-page" button that also asks you to press F11.

~~~
untog
It's really not an ideal solution. Does F11 even work on the Mac? I F11 in
Chrome, I get no (ahem) chrome, but if I F11 in Firefox and IE, my tabs are
still there.

(EDIT: just realised they disappear after a little while. Interesting.)

In any case, the fact that there is nothing clickable is baffling. I really
don't understand why no-one thought to tackle this when discussing the <video>
tag.

~~~
drivebyacct2
I love this behavior actually. Besides the fact that Flash has had years to
get fullscreen right, I've yet to have it worked 100% as expected and I might
as well light myself on fire as try to use it in Linux.

(With HTML5 <video>) I can easily get the video to go fullscreen in the window
(as is the behavior of "fullscreening" video in Chrome) which is nice because
I can have a video play and not have to have my browser window at the normal
size... and if I want, I can press F11 and have it go full screen (without
borking my computer in the process). (Who cares what the button is... is the
clipboard going to fail because it's Cmd+C in OS X and Ctrl+C in Windows?)

edit: I can't reply any further, but this provides context for why this
decision was made. When considering mobile devices, this seems like an even
more prudent choice: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1055214/is-there-a-
way-to...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1055214/is-there-a-way-to-make-
html5-video-fullscreen/1055524#1055524)

------
talmand
I thought I read somewhere last year that Flash was dead. Yet, Flash is still
here.

I think everyone can agree that we all understand that Flash is on its way out
as a tool for websites. Those stupid intros and Flash menus are already dying
out thanks to javascript. Nothing to do with HTML5 at all.

So HTML5 will offer us similar capabilities to Flash using Canvas. Does that
mean in a few years we can start hating on Canvas because it'll do all the
same things we hate Flash for? Banner ads in Canvas anyone?

Flash video you say? Not until some form of DRM is in place. Content providers
probably wouldn't care for that right-click "Save Video As..." choice we would
have. But, most likely, it'll eventually happen.

So, can silly articles like this just stop already? If all you know is Flash
on web pages then, yes, Flash is indeed dying. Screw that, as a website tool
Flash is already dead. But, if you can think beyond that, Flash is turning
into something else entirely. If you pay attention to things Adobe is doing or
has done, such as embracing HTML5 with their related technologies, then you
shall see that Flash dying on websites is far beyond Adobe's concern.

~~~
Zachhack
Agreed. Copyrighted content delivered solely via HTML5 has a long way to go.
Proprietary runtimes controlled by large companies with DRM technology are
currently the safest method (for copyright holders) to deliver that content to
a paying audience.

------
tomlin

        “I think the disappearance of Flash is closer than 
        people think,” ABI senior analyst Mark Beccue said 
        in a press release accompanying the data.
    

This is from the mouth of someone who doesn't really understand what Flash is,
apparently. HTML5 may dethrone Flash as the defacto video delivery system.
But, to say HTML5 completely obliterates Flash is...kinda hyperbolic in a way.

~~~
Ruudjah
So what reasons are there to use flash over HTML5, I ask myself and the HN
crowd?

    
    
      -Video. (Mwoah, only non-WebM video, can't really count this one)
      -Webcam
      (thanks garethsprice)
      -Simultaneous sounds (thanks AndyJPartridge)
      -Cross-browser support (browsers interpreting HTML5 differently) 
      -???
    

Non competitive advantages:

    
    
      -Games (see Angry Birds)
      -3D hardware acceleration (both have the same security issues exposing shaders)
    

Competitive advantages HTML5 over flash:

    
    
      -2D Hardware acceleration
      -Open
      -Cross-browser support (flash has it's update/versioning problems)

~~~
AndyJPartridge
For me, the biggest problem I have trying to use HTML5/Javascript/CSS for a
game is sound.

I can't get background music and sound effects working simultaneously under
iOS using just those standards.

~~~
ericmoritz
is that a deficiency of the iOS browser or the HTML5 standard?

~~~
AndyJPartridge
iOS mainly: Sounds need to be triggered by touch events, which of course for
gaming seriously restricts what you can do.

EG: No sound effect from an alien shooting at you.

------
melling
Yes, HTML5 is coming fast, and I think we actually have Microsoft to thank
because previously their lack of support was hindering adoption. However, they
are making incredible strides in IE9 and IE10.

<http://html5test.com/results.html>

Now, if they would only adopt WebGL.

------
overshard
As a Web Developer I've been doing HTML5 for a few months now. I just use JS
libs to fix old browsers. I've produced 20 or so websites already all using
HTML5 and none have had "ZOMG YOU AREN'T SUPPORTING MY BROWSER" complaints.
(Daily traffic to these 20 is about 3-5k uniques each, it's not a massive test
base so take it as you will.)

------
null_para
Is it really AAPL that is giving massive boost? How about GOOG?

Ohh..c'mon! Feels like I'm reading AAPL fanboi blog.

~~~
rimantas
Well, before Google started with Chrome you could say that was true, they were
doing impressive things with WebKit. I am not counting commits and their
weight now, so hard to tell how it is today.

~~~
drivebyacct2
I'm fairly certain the point is about getting good (WebKit) browsers into the
hands of users... not the attribution of features and commits to WebKit.

------
firefoxman1
The only thing that will keep Flash alive even once HTML5 is pretty much
universally supported will be the content control Flash has. With the <video>
or <audio> tag, all you have to do is view the page source and you can
download anything. I think companies like Vevo will fight hard against that.

~~~
dredmorbius
Yeah, I mean, it's not like there are any Flash download tools now or
anything.

Or even digging through various directories to find where your video's been
downloaded to.

For a while there, Flash was insisting on deleting its files (the directory
entry is removed but the handle and content remain) in Linux. You can still
find the filehandle through /proc and restore it.

Content control doesn't work so long as users own their systems and you've got
to distribute it in some means or another.

------
mark242
Browser trends from a fairly-well-trafficked site, this month: 31% IE8, 18%
Firefox, 16% Safari, 11% Chrome, 11% IE7, 10% IE9, 3% Other (IE6, mostly).

IE8 has dropped 12% share in a year. Firefox has dropped 2% in a year. Safari
has climbed 12% in a year (iPad and iPhone usage). Chrome has climbed 6% in a
year. IE7 has dropped 7%. IE9 obviously has climbed 10% share.

That's 55% of audience that has an HTML5-capable browser. Enough for us to put
in CSS3 tweaks, selectors, etc., but not enough to abandon the metric ton of
legacy Javascript and div soup that we have. At its current rate, IE8 is going
to be around for a long, long, long time, much like IE6 was.

~~~
nextparadigms
Mobile Safari is not the same thing as desktop Safari, just like Android
browser is not Chrome, Opera Mobile is not desktop Opera, and mobile Firefox
is not desktop Firefox.

It's completely misleading to _suddenly_ add iOS browser market share to
desktop Safari market share and go like "Wow. Safari market share grew 12% -
in a year!" - when Mobile Safari has grown at a steady pace since 2007 and has
never been considered part of desktop Safari's market share.

They may share code with their desktop counter-parts, but they are not the
same, and if you are going to lump the desktop version with the mobile version
together, then at least do it for _all_ browsers.

------
rimantas
See [http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/html5-notes-for-
analysts-a...](http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/html5-notes-for-analysts-and-
journalists/)

------
seagaia
Where do Flash games come into this? I'm not very familiar with the
development of a flash game but some guy in this article claims "Flash will
disappear" or something. I assume this means whatever source the games have
will just be compiled into some other sort of file compatible with HTML5? Or
am I missing something completely?]

~~~
9999
He is implying that new content (including games) will be created in HTML5
using Canvas and JS instead of in Flash. While google has made a tool that can
convert some content from Flash to HTML5 automatically (Swiffy), it only
supports very old Flash content.

~~~
talmand
I've always wondered how games written with javascript on canvas would handle
cheating since you can type javascript code into the web page you are
currently looking at.

Adobe also has a tool for converting Flash to Canvas:
<http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/>

~~~
andypants
If you write the javascript code inside an anonymous function, outside code by
the user can't interact with it.

However, the user can still use javascript to manipulate the dom, and hence
the canvas (I think).

------
thematt
It says the HTML5 standard is not slated to be complete until 2020. That seems
ridiculous. Why so long?

~~~
rimantas
Because by definition it requires three browser wendors with _complete_
implementation of the standart. Looking at it this way we have no version of
HTML complete.

------
catshirt
so fast that gigaom missed it, apparently.

------
swindsor
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HTML5 IS, BUT SIGN ME UP FOR SOME. I'LL TAKE 13!!! BUY
NOW!!! CAN WE INVEST? IS IT PATENTABLE??? DO IT NOWWWWW.

------
kjames
"The HTML5 boom is coming. Fast."

That's what she said?

