Scribd "scrapping Flash and betting the company on HTML5"
Document sharing site Scribd, which allows users to upload PDF, Word, PowerPoint, and other documents on the web using Adobe's Flash Player, has announced that it will begin converting its file service to HTML5, starting tomorrow.
A report by TechCrunch cited Scribd cofounder and chief technology officer Jared Friedman as saying, ?We are scrapping three years of Flash development and betting the company on HTML5 because we believe HTML5 is a dramatically better reading experience than Flash. Now any document can become a web page.?
Scribd's service will convert billions of documents into standard web pages supporting the pinch to zoom features of modern multitouch devices like iPad, as well as document wide search, bookmarks, and navigation controls. Shared documents or even books can be uploaded and shared through Twitter and Facebook.
The transition will begin tomorrow, with 200,000 of Scribd's most popular documents being converted to HTML5. Eventually, all of the company's shared documents will be migrated from Flash.
Ditching Flash for HTML5, like YouTube
Much like Google's YouTube service, Scribd originally used Flash to present shared documents due to limitations in previous web standards and the various implementations of those standards among web browsers. However, HTML5 is bringing a new level of interoperability to web browsers, along with sophisticated new features that don't require a separate proprietary plugin like Flash or Silverlight.
?Right now the document is in a box,? Friedman said, ?a YouTube-type of experience. There is a bunch of content and a bunch of stuff around it. In the new experience we are taking the content out of the box.?
The report says Scribd has been working in secret on the project for the last six months. The new HTML5-based sharing service will use the new standard's native support for fonts, vector graphics, and rotating text.
Friedman estimated that 97% of web browsers will be able to read Scribd?s HTML5 documents, as the elements it uses are already widely adopted. Shared HTML5 documents can be embedded in existing pages using an iFrame.
A report by TechCrunch cited Scribd cofounder and chief technology officer Jared Friedman as saying, ?We are scrapping three years of Flash development and betting the company on HTML5 because we believe HTML5 is a dramatically better reading experience than Flash. Now any document can become a web page.?
Scribd's service will convert billions of documents into standard web pages supporting the pinch to zoom features of modern multitouch devices like iPad, as well as document wide search, bookmarks, and navigation controls. Shared documents or even books can be uploaded and shared through Twitter and Facebook.
The transition will begin tomorrow, with 200,000 of Scribd's most popular documents being converted to HTML5. Eventually, all of the company's shared documents will be migrated from Flash.
Ditching Flash for HTML5, like YouTube
Much like Google's YouTube service, Scribd originally used Flash to present shared documents due to limitations in previous web standards and the various implementations of those standards among web browsers. However, HTML5 is bringing a new level of interoperability to web browsers, along with sophisticated new features that don't require a separate proprietary plugin like Flash or Silverlight.
?Right now the document is in a box,? Friedman said, ?a YouTube-type of experience. There is a bunch of content and a bunch of stuff around it. In the new experience we are taking the content out of the box.?
The report says Scribd has been working in secret on the project for the last six months. The new HTML5-based sharing service will use the new standard's native support for fonts, vector graphics, and rotating text.
Friedman estimated that 97% of web browsers will be able to read Scribd?s HTML5 documents, as the elements it uses are already widely adopted. Shared HTML5 documents can be embedded in existing pages using an iFrame.
Comments
I always find scrolling in the Flash PDF viewer thingy really annoying.
Yes or no?
HTML5 kills Firefox?
Yes or no?
Firefox 3.6.3 scores 101 out of 160 on the following test: http://www.html5test.com/
Edit: That's on both Windows 7 and Leopard.
Of course Scribd is also facing a huge class-action for massive copyright infringement...
They tried to jump the gun on Google's identical service by just kind of forgetting about the legal ramifications of earning profit by distributing millions of copyrighted works without permission. Oops!
Firefox 3.6.3 scores 101 out of 160 on the following test: http://www.html5test.com/
Edit: That's on both Windows 7 and Leopard.
Guess the question I should ask is if the video codec that is associated with HTML5 can´t work in Firefox?
Firefox 3.6.3 scores 101 out of 160 on the following test: http://www.html5test.com/
Edit: That's on both Windows 7 and Leopard.
my safari slaps your firefox with 113 on a mac mini. must be somethin wrong with the test page. I thought safari supports aac, but the test says it doesn't.
Flash reminds me of RealPlayer.
Wow! Great comment!
Yes! PDFs in Safari suck ass, so this will be good news if it sticks.
PDF works fine for me on Safari ... what are you talking about.
Flash reminds me of RealPlayer.
Nailed it. That is the fantastically Perfect analogy.
my safari slaps your firefox with 113 on a mac mini. must be somethin wrong with the test page. I thought safari supports aac, but the test says it doesn't.
Hm, the latest WebKit Nightly Build scores 137 out of 160... getting there.
Yes! PDFs in Safari suck ass, so this will be good news if it sticks.
Of course Scribd is also facing a huge class-action for massive copyright infringement...
They tried to jump the gun on Google's identical service by just kind of forgetting about the legal ramifications of earning profit by distributing millions of copyrighted works without permission. Oops!
PDFs are great unless you use Adobe's plugin. Maybe you should disable Adobe's piece of junk plugin? It is worse then Flash...
Guess the question I should ask is if the video codec that is associated with HTML5 can´t work in Firefox?
:sigh: HTML5's video tag currently supports H.264/MPEG-4 AVC AND Ogg Theroa, the latter is used by Firefox and Opera, but any can be used. This article has nothing to do with the HTML5 video tag.
Flash reminds me of RealPlayer.
Right?! Excellent comparison. That had nearly complete penetration, too. Look where they are now. Of course, Flash has many more uses than RealPlayer and HTML5 is still very far from replacing many aspects of Flash. But for video, audio and other simpler aspects it's on the way out, which comprising the majority of Flash uses on the web.
Firefox 3.6.3 scores 101 out of 160 on the following test: http://www.html5test.com/.
The new Chrome 5 Beta scores 142 out of 160.
The damn is breaking.
Picking up momentum. The biggest thing I see missing from the HTML5 video option is full screen. Once modern browsers are updated with that ability I think we'll see a pretty jump in that as the default option for those desktop browsers.
Guess the question I should ask is if the video codec that is associated with HTML5 can´t work in Firefox?
The HTML 5 spec is actually completely silent on video codecs. Anyone can use any codec they want and still be compliant with HTML 5.
What will kill FireFox is the fickle nature of their fans and the existence of Chrome. Chrome eats FireFox's market share while hardly making a dent in Safari's.
The HTML 5 spec is actually completely silent on video codecs. Anyone can use any codec they want and still be compliant with HTML 5.
What will kill FireFox is the fickle nature of their fans and the existence of Chrome. Chrome eats FireFox's market share while hardly making a dent in Safari's.
Actually, Firefox and Safari are both basically holding steady while Chrome takes share from Explorer...
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...-200904-201005
Firefox doesn't really compete with Chrome in my opinion.
Firefox is all about extensions and add-ons, while Chrome is focused more on being clean and minimalistic.
Safari and Explorer are for people who can't be bothered to find something better...
Actually, Firefox and Safari are both basically holding steady while Chrome takes share from Explorer...
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...-200904-201005
Firefox doesn't really compete with Chrome in my opinion.
Firefox is all about extensions and add-ons, while Chrome is focused more on being clean and minimalistic.
Safari and Explorer are for people who can't be bothered to find something better...
1) Many people prefer Safari and IE over other options. I certainly do for their respective OSes. They both have better OS integration and are better at power consumption than 3rd-party browsers.
2) Chrome has extension support.
3) Mozilla isn't doing so great with Firefox engine speeds and it's pretty hard to only have Opera in your corner with Ogg Theora support when every major player from HW decoders to OSes to browsers to websites are supporting H.264 because it's the best option. They're in a tough spot they can't win. Their only savior right now looks to be Google's VP8, but who know if that will be widely adopted.
I've abhorred scribd for it's use of flash to display docs. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with HTML 5.