You could make the same argument for Internet Explorer-only websites. There used to be plenty of sites that would not work on Firefox and Safari. Now they all work.
Exactly. It took a good five years for devs to move away from IE code towards web standards (or at least find a work-around), just like it's going to take a good five years to move away from flash. Something needs to fill in the interim whilst we all wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Well if you really need Flash, then you are going to have to avoid the iPhone and the iPad.
Unless Apple get flash on the iPad, which I think they will. If not a lot of the users the iPad is aimed at just won't "get it" when they can't access certain sites or content which is going to be a terrible user experience. I don't think Jobs is going to compromise on something that important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
I am curious though, given the fact that a lot of sites are now offering Flash alternatives.....
(I just tried out Flashless YouTube)
...which Flash-powered website can you simply not live without?
But when I activated Flash. It didn't work either!
That's odd. You should see an embedded video link. No wonder you didn't notice a difference when you switched off flash!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Really? It seemed much faster to me. The sites that cared, got their act together quickly - and switched to web-standards.
The sites that didn't care sent out a big signal out saying "we don't want your custom". That was quite helpful.
C.
It was actually much slower. It's only in the past 3 or 4 years that we've got what looks like a true cross-browser internet.
In a sense it's still ongoing however, because the only reason most websites look the same on IE\\Firefox\\Chrome\\Safari\\Opera is because devs do a lot of browser detection and custom work arounds.
It was actually much slower. It's only in the past 3 or 4 years that we've got what looks like a true cross-browser internet.
But it was only in the last 3-4 years we got a credible rival to IE. Firefox was launched in 2004 and really picked up steam a couple of years later.
As soon as 10% of users were using Firefox - we saw IE-only websites start to get fixed. Most of this changeover happened between 2006-2008. It was pretty quick! Even though that meant re-writing entire sites.
Content providers have been coping with a Flashless internet for a while. The iPhone has been a force in encouraging providers to move to an alternative delivery method for video and advertising. So the process is already underway.
Adobe's blogger, Lee Brimelow made this post - arguing that the reference sites would not work without flash.
But already most of these sites offer alternative iPhone friendly versions.
Flash was a useful intermediate technology which allowed the web to push content, when the underlying web technologies had not caught up. And I am sure Flash will be around for many years to come.
But Flash is a terrible technology for mobile devices. It was never designed with mobile devices in mind. Nothing scales, nothing renders in hardware. It's a dog.
So Flash-only content is a bad idea for most content providers. Because most content providers want to reach the largest possible audience and that includes mobile devices. In a year's time, I think it will be difficult to find a major site that does not offer a Flash-free alternative method for accessing its content.
But it was only in the last 3-4 years we got a credible rival to IE. Firefox was launched in 2004 and really picked up steam a couple of years later.
As soon as 10% of users were using Firefox - we saw IE-only websites start to get fixed. Most of this changeover happened between 2006-2008. It was pretty quick! Even though that meant re-writing entire sites.
Content providers have been coping with a Flashless internet for a while. The iPhone has been a force in encouraging providers to move to an alternative delivery method for video and advertising. So the process is already underway.
Adobe's blogger, Lee Brimelow made this post - arguing that the reference sites would not work without flash.
But already most of these sites offer alternative iPhone friendly versions.
Flash was a useful intermediate technology which allowed the web to push content, when the underlying web technologies had not caught up. And I am sure Flash will be around for many years to come.
But Flash is a terrible technology for mobile devices. It was never designed with mobile devices in mind. Nothing scales, nothing renders in hardware. It's a dog.
So Flash-only content is a bad idea for most content providers. Because most content providers want to reach the largest possible audience and that includes mobile devices. In a year's time, I think it will be difficult to find a major site that does not offer a Flash-free alternative method for accessing its content.
C.
If sites start offering the mobile version of their website to the iPad it will be an even worse browsing experience than not having flash.
Here is a question. Does the mobile Safari version even support the HTML 5 video and audio elements? It doesn't seem to work for me.
If not then that's obviously something Apple need to work on as well. It's no use wanting sites to use a Flash alternative for video if they aren't even offering an alternative!
Apple bought KHTML, and instead of keeping it in house, turned it into the open-source Webkit. This is the driving technology behind Safari, Chrome and Nokia's browsers.
So... not supported now, but safe to assume it will be at some time in the future?
This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
The evil makers of Firefox are clearly restricting your freedoms - and thereby forcing you into an Adobe-dominated content infrastructure!
Or rather they are trying to prevent an MPEG LA-dominated content infrastructure!
I honestly can't see Flash being replaced in the next 12 months when the alternative for one of Flash's functions (i.e. the video) hasn't even been decided on yet.
In any case I've bookmarked this thread for a 12 month follow up
Also, test results using Chrome on a Win7 box showed around 30% CPU at full screen for the mp4 vs 20% full screen for a 720p video in Flash. Also the full screen resize on the mp4 looks pathetic.
However that is in no way representative of the video content itself. I got 5% CPU usage and a perfect upscale using a stand-alone player. I think Google just need to put a bit more effort into their HTML 5 player.
I honestly can't see Flash being replaced in the next 12 months when the alternative for one of Flash's functions (i.e. the video) hasn't even been decided on yet.
Flash won't be replaced.
But content providers will introduce new delivery methods alongside Flash to reach the audience they want to reach. If you don't have Flash, the content will be delivered by another method.
HTML5 video - using h264 as the video standard - is what will be selected for video streaming. There's not chance of OGG being used. Because h264 runs in hardware.
YouTube, Vimeo and even the BBC iPlayer are already offering video streaming based on h264.
Comments
You could make the same argument for Internet Explorer-only websites. There used to be plenty of sites that would not work on Firefox and Safari. Now they all work.
Exactly. It took a good five years for devs to move away from IE code towards web standards (or at least find a work-around), just like it's going to take a good five years to move away from flash. Something needs to fill in the interim whilst we all wait.
Well if you really need Flash, then you are going to have to avoid the iPhone and the iPad.
Unless Apple get flash on the iPad, which I think they will. If not a lot of the users the iPad is aimed at just won't "get it" when they can't access certain sites or content which is going to be a terrible user experience. I don't think Jobs is going to compromise on something that important.
I am curious though, given the fact that a lot of sites are now offering Flash alternatives.....
(I just tried out Flashless YouTube)
...which Flash-powered website can you simply not live without?
Does this work without Flash?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._of_music.html
Does this work without Flash?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._of_music.html
No it does not.
But when I activated Flash. It didn't work either!
It took a good five years for devs to move away from IE code towards web standards
Really? It seemed much faster to me. The sites that cared, got their act together quickly - and switched to web-standards.
The sites that didn't care sent out a big signal out saying "we don't want your custom". That was quite helpful.
C.
No it does not.
But when I activated Flash. It didn't work either!
That's odd. You should see an embedded video link. No wonder you didn't notice a difference when you switched off flash!!
Really? It seemed much faster to me. The sites that cared, got their act together quickly - and switched to web-standards.
The sites that didn't care sent out a big signal out saying "we don't want your custom". That was quite helpful.
C.
It was actually much slower. It's only in the past 3 or 4 years that we've got what looks like a true cross-browser internet.
In a sense it's still ongoing however, because the only reason most websites look the same on IE\\Firefox\\Chrome\\Safari\\Opera is because devs do a lot of browser detection and custom work arounds.
It was actually much slower. It's only in the past 3 or 4 years that we've got what looks like a true cross-browser internet.
But it was only in the last 3-4 years we got a credible rival to IE. Firefox was launched in 2004 and really picked up steam a couple of years later.
As soon as 10% of users were using Firefox - we saw IE-only websites start to get fixed. Most of this changeover happened between 2006-2008. It was pretty quick! Even though that meant re-writing entire sites.
Content providers have been coping with a Flashless internet for a while. The iPhone has been a force in encouraging providers to move to an alternative delivery method for video and advertising. So the process is already underway.
Adobe's blogger, Lee Brimelow made this post - arguing that the reference sites would not work without flash.
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703
But already most of these sites offer alternative iPhone friendly versions.
Flash was a useful intermediate technology which allowed the web to push content, when the underlying web technologies had not caught up. And I am sure Flash will be around for many years to come.
But Flash is a terrible technology for mobile devices. It was never designed with mobile devices in mind. Nothing scales, nothing renders in hardware. It's a dog.
So Flash-only content is a bad idea for most content providers. Because most content providers want to reach the largest possible audience and that includes mobile devices. In a year's time, I think it will be difficult to find a major site that does not offer a Flash-free alternative method for accessing its content.
C.
But it was only in the last 3-4 years we got a credible rival to IE. Firefox was launched in 2004 and really picked up steam a couple of years later.
As soon as 10% of users were using Firefox - we saw IE-only websites start to get fixed. Most of this changeover happened between 2006-2008. It was pretty quick! Even though that meant re-writing entire sites.
Content providers have been coping with a Flashless internet for a while. The iPhone has been a force in encouraging providers to move to an alternative delivery method for video and advertising. So the process is already underway.
Adobe's blogger, Lee Brimelow made this post - arguing that the reference sites would not work without flash.
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703
But already most of these sites offer alternative iPhone friendly versions.
Flash was a useful intermediate technology which allowed the web to push content, when the underlying web technologies had not caught up. And I am sure Flash will be around for many years to come.
But Flash is a terrible technology for mobile devices. It was never designed with mobile devices in mind. Nothing scales, nothing renders in hardware. It's a dog.
So Flash-only content is a bad idea for most content providers. Because most content providers want to reach the largest possible audience and that includes mobile devices. In a year's time, I think it will be difficult to find a major site that does not offer a Flash-free alternative method for accessing its content.
C.
If sites start offering the mobile version of their website to the iPad it will be an even worse browsing experience than not having flash.
Here is a question. Does the mobile Safari version even support the HTML 5 video and audio elements? It doesn't seem to work for me.
If not then that's obviously something Apple need to work on as well. It's no use wanting sites to use a Flash alternative for video if they aren't even offering an alternative!
Here is a question. Does the mobile Safari version even support the HTML 5 video and audio elements? It doesn't seem to work for me.
Q: Which browser technology is most compliant with HTML5?
A: Webkit.
Q: Who develops Webkit?
C.
Q: Which browser technology is most compliant with HTML5?
A: Webkit.
Q: Who develops Webkit?
C.
Nokia and others are working with Qt WebKit
That's not the whole truth.
Apple bought KHTML, and instead of keeping it in house, turned it into the open-source Webkit. This is the driving technology behind Safari, Chrome and Nokia's browsers.
C.
Q: Which browser technology is most compliant with HTML5?
A: Webkit.
Q: Who develops Webkit?
C.
So... not supported now, but safe to assume it will be at some time in the future?
Has there actually been any official announcement about this? What about planned codec support?
So... not supported now, but safe to assume it will be at some time in the future?
This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
http://jilion.com/sublime/video
It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.
C.
This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
http://jilion.com/sublime/video
It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.
C.
I'm impressed. So was Gruber.
Played the video on my iMac (C2D 2.6ghz) and the cpu utilization was around 10%. I like the controls as well.
Going to try it on my iPhone.
This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
http://jilion.com/sublime/video
It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.
C.
I love that page. I show that video to everyone I can with the tags "future of HD online".
People with laptops can't believe they're playing HD video. "It's almost like my computer will survive this!"
This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
http://jilion.com/sublime/video
It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.
C.
I get a "browser not supported" error in Firefox.
I get a "browser not supported" error in Firefox.
The evil makers of Firefox are clearly restricting your freedoms - and thereby forcing you into an Adobe-dominated content infrastructure!
C.
This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.
http://jilion.com/sublime/video
It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.
C.
Dear C.
Thanks for that. Looks just beautiful on my iPhone. I avoid Flash but haven't really been up with HTML5. If this is what to expect, fantastic.
By the way, I didn't miss floppy drives when Apple abandoned them either!
All the best.
The evil makers of Firefox are clearly restricting your freedoms - and thereby forcing you into an Adobe-dominated content infrastructure!
Or rather they are trying to prevent an MPEG LA-dominated content infrastructure!
I honestly can't see Flash being replaced in the next 12 months when the alternative for one of Flash's functions (i.e. the video) hasn't even been decided on yet.
In any case I've bookmarked this thread for a 12 month follow up
Also, test results using Chrome on a Win7 box showed around 30% CPU at full screen for the mp4 vs 20% full screen for a 720p video in Flash. Also the full screen resize on the mp4 looks pathetic.
However that is in no way representative of the video content itself. I got 5% CPU usage and a perfect upscale using a stand-alone player. I think Google just need to put a bit more effort into their HTML 5 player.
I honestly can't see Flash being replaced in the next 12 months when the alternative for one of Flash's functions (i.e. the video) hasn't even been decided on yet.
Flash won't be replaced.
But content providers will introduce new delivery methods alongside Flash to reach the audience they want to reach. If you don't have Flash, the content will be delivered by another method.
HTML5 video - using h264 as the video standard - is what will be selected for video streaming. There's not chance of OGG being used. Because h264 runs in hardware.
YouTube, Vimeo and even the BBC iPlayer are already offering video streaming based on h264.
C.
Look at this Apple.
THis is a geeks wet dream come true.
Atom processor
5.6" Multi-touch screen!
Windows 7.
The performance and experience has got to be extraordinary.
The iPad is not for geeks.
Who IS it for?