What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
111 Comments
- blakecr, on 06/16/2009, -7/+94I hope so.
- CrikeyMike, on 06/16/2009, -10/+94I can live with Flash, but now Silverlight? I say, save me HTML 5...
- pierre, on 06/17/2009, -5/+80I really hope it does, always hated flash.
Loading... % Complete: 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 ...
Flash itself is not the problem, but rather the way people mis-used it. Entire sites built from flash = fail. - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -1/+48Oh please please let flash die. I'm sick of glitchy flash video players. Want to rewind a video? Well ***** you, I'm going to bounce right back to where you were and stop the video so you have to replay the whole ***** thing you stupid bimbo.
- borez, on 06/17/2009, -3/+44Apart from the obvious streaming side, I actually hate flash sites, especially the ones with stupid long intros, it's like, just take me to the content I need to look at please... without all the crap.
- nbluth, on 06/17/2009, -12/+47Silverlight is still alive?
- Nephersir7, on 06/17/2009, -5/+39I doubt it can kill flash in most areas, but it can surely outpace it in video/audio streaming, ads and simple apps.
- ArthurSucks, on 06/17/2009, -0/+34Honestly flash itself is not that bad. The problems stem from piss poor design. You got these kids who learn flash and they want to build everything in it. Flash should not be required to operate a website.
- AndrewWiggin, on 06/17/2009, -0/+25FTA: Hickson adds, "It would be a terrible step backward if humanity's major development platform [the Web] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been."
What an unexpectedly awesome quote from this article. - nickgs, on 06/17/2009, -3/+27This will be a great step for the web. But for anyone that has done any web development knows the standard is always implemented differently throughout browsers. Flash will continue to provide a platform, yes proprietary, that will offer developers a consistent, predictable playing field through out browsers.
- tj111, on 06/17/2009, -1/+20For anyone interested in what HTML 5 can do, read through the posts over at http://hacks.mozilla.org . It's developer-oriented, but if your running FF 3.5 you can check out the demos all written in javascript/CSS/HTML5 and see how impressive it really is.
- inactive, on 06/17/2009, -0/+19God damn i hate that. I also hate the "I know you pressed the mouse only a little ahead, but i am going to go ahead and bounce you half way through the video and force you to re download the beginning of it."
- shrudheuie, on 06/17/2009, -3/+19***** I hope so. I am so tired of hearing about new exploits and bugs and other horrible things introduced by these programs. A simple video tag may fix that. I hope so. Plus, it would make it easier to watch videos on mobile devices that can't handle Flash's ridiculous overhead.
- geodebug, on 06/17/2009, -0/+16Remember that HTML 5 is just a specification not an implementation. All you are doing is moving the web 2.0 challenges to the browser developers instead of 3rd parties.
For example:
Adobe has high motivation to make Flash work the same on different systems so if you use flash you can have some guarantee it will render the same in different browsers/operating systems.
Now MS historically hasn't been the best at complying to standards. It will be anybody's guess how they'll implement different features of HTML 5 in some future version of IE. Same goes for every browser. - itsthehumidity, on 06/17/2009, -2/+15Flash for fun little addicting games or embedded video is good. Flash-based web design is bad. If HTML5 is going to make Flash obsolete it had better do what Flash does best just as well, and I'm not convinced it could.
- OverDriven, on 06/17/2009, -0/+11This is seriously hilarious. I can only assume that this article was written by someone with little to no knowledge about this topic. To make a long story short, HTML5 is not a programming language. It's a markup language. You can't even compare the two. Try doing this with HTML5:
http://www.sumopaint.com/web/
Click "Open Sumo Paint..." on the left. This is what a proper RIA looks like. Not that cheesy flash ***** that fills the internet. HTML5 does not even begin to approach this level of sophistication. - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -3/+14I second that.
- pault107, on 06/17/2009, -0/+10That's not the fault of Flash. Idiots will build 'stupid long intros' with whatever technology allows them to.
But, be honest, how many intros do you see nowadays? Sure, there used to be lots of them, but those days are over and Flash still has a bad name with many people due to that hangover. - mrmod, on 06/17/2009, -5/+15Unfortunately.
- bluehouse, on 06/17/2009, -0/+10No it won't but putting the word "kill" or "killer" in a title is a sure way to the front page
- AbuQutaita, on 09/18/2009, -3/+13It was only the main web technology used by NBC to broadcast the Olympics on the internet...
- input, on 06/17/2009, -1/+10I would digg you up 500 times if I could
- aphexcoil, on 06/19/2009, -0/+9As a developer, I'd much rather have the challenge of working with W3C specs along with browsers that adhere to those specifications. Most do a good job, but IE always wanders off the beaten path to throw out some proprietary command that requires conditional checks.
I'd love to have two or three solid tools like CSS 3, HTML 5 and java/javascript. When things like Silverlight come along, I just do a facepalm. A lot of these larger corporate projects start off with good intentions but then quickly devolve into a pissing contest. - jmferris, on 06/17/2009, -0/+9You have to consider the target markets. Flash has become the de facto standard for animated content on the web. It really does stand to lose the most.
Silverlight, however it is currently marketed, still has a very good chance of being a channel for distribution of applications. Microsoft is putting a lot of weight behind it, and the effort that they are putting into the CoreCLR is a testament to the fact that it is something that they have broader visions for than serving ads and playing games online. Given the tooling available, along with the platform, it is rapidly becoming more and more viable as a channel for distributing applications to fill business needs.
HTML 5 might have an <audio /> and <video /> tag, but that is not what is driving Silverlight. Granted, it is the most common usage we have seen, to date, but how many companies would love to distribute rich applications in a browser that do not look like a web application - and, with some recent examples, can be "undocked" from the browser and placed on the desktop to run like a standard WinForms app? There is definitely some buzz building around it. - pcpimpster, on 06/17/2009, -3/+11The latest version of Netflix's Watch Now runs entirely through siliverlight. You can't even see the .wmv file for download in the page source any longer.
- 7m7uf, on 06/17/2009, -2/+10Java? Apples and Oranges.
- burnt1ce85, on 06/17/2009, -1/+8Speaking as a professional web developer..
You can install plugins in older browsers to use the latest version of Silverlight and Flash.
You can't install plugins in older browsers to use the latest version of HTML 5. You have to install relatively new version of browsers.
So the answer is no. Normal users don't give a rats ass what technology is being used. As long as it works without confusing the them is the key. - HellDonut, on 06/22/2009, -0/+6The only people who think HTML5 is gonna kill RIA platforms like Flash (and to most extents, SL) are people who never worked with either Flash or Silverlight.
HTML5 adds features stuff like Flash had many years ago; leaves a lot to be desired in direct comparison, both in performance, features, and even reliability - and it will still take many, many years to even be feasible due to browser penetration. IE6 is 8 years old and is still used by 22% of the global internet access - IE8 has ~15% on ACID3 and no HTML5 support. Browser updates is a much harder think for people to accept and do than a plugin update. What do you think will happen in the future? HTML5 can't will never catch up both in features and in penetration. And I'm not just talking about Flash, but even new tech like SL and Unity3d.
HTML5 is in itself a good idea. Thinking it'll have any impact - let alone kill - the Flash platform is just a bunch of wishful thinking by people who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
There are people who think the entire world uses the same setup they do. I work in the real world though. - Talphin, on 06/17/2009, -1/+7I don't know about that. Have you ever been to 2advanced.com? That site is definitely not fail... Although I agree, most full Flash sites suck.
- clickmyface, on 06/17/2009, -0/+6But the growing trend is to come together. Make no mistake, Mozilla, Google, Apple, and W3C are offended by Microsofts indignation. Microsoft isnt going to have a choice, they have to play catch up. Apple is dictating the fastest growing browser trend, mobile on the go browsing, and they have Google+Webkit standing right beside them sprinting forward.
Almost as equally, these companies despise the Flash team. What a disgusting plague flash has been. Yes, it will have it's place, but much smaller than how it's used today.
It only takes a few strategic moves to change the browser/web world. Apple's movie trailer site is quicktime based, now you have a world running quicktime. Google has already made youtube available non-flash for mobile browsers, and they can very well do the same for everyone. Suddenly, Flash becomes a little more obsolete. - kevisazombie, on 06/18/2009, -0/+6lol at everyone in this thread whining about their favorite porno sites ***** flv video player
- theprogrammer, on 06/17/2009, -1/+7Please, please Digg this comment up. It captures exactly what's wrong with the ignorant premise of this ignorant article. This article basically reads: "HTML 5 will have a few new things, therefore it will meet our needs for rich internet applications." What?!? I'm a professional web application developer. I look at HTML 5, and I see a few small nifty upgrades. That's all you've got to show for all these years of work, W3C?
Rich Application does NOT mean streaming video. That's just one little application among thousands. Enough with the streaming video already! Rich Application implies windows, widgets/controls, graphics, animation, sliders, knobs, bells, whistles, etc - and it implies that these things should be zippy and responsive.
The web has evolved to a point where people want to use it as a platform for rich client-server applications. The technologies have NOT evolved to support this, so we're stuck with having to hammer HTML and javascript into doing what we want, which they really don't. HTML 5 is NOT that evolution either, and I'm baffled whenever journalists, or even Google, talk as if it is.
Silverlight and flash aren't complete solutions, because they only address the client side, not the end-to-end. But Silverlight is at least a step in the right direction, because it supports writing compiled client code in a type-safe language - that alone is a tremendous advantage that programmers gave up, taking a step backwards, for the web.
20 years from now, we won't still be using this hodge-podge server script/HTML/javascript/plugins kludge. Even Google knows that's a terrible way to develop apps, which is why they have Web Toolkit. But that's just a stopgap. Web Toolkit itself points out that there's a much better way to develop web apps, which is closer to the way we traditionally developed apps in general. The only question is who will eventually get around to leading the way? It won't be the W3C, at the glacial pace they move. What good are open standards if they retard the rate of progress so much? So will it be Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Sun, or maybe some upstart that isn't so beholden to the status quo? - Schweppesale, on 06/17/2009, -1/+6merely? This thing can potentially take Microsoft's OS dominance and shove a dildo up it's @ss
- Groady, on 06/17/2009, -1/+6The answer is in the article.
"HTML 5 is still a standard in progress and the makers of it say it will be five to ten years at least before it's done"
HTML5 is not coming anytime soon and by the time we can all say "ooh look i'm watching video in pure HTML and Javascript" these other technologies will have evolved into something else. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for web standards, but if HTML5 is going to take 10 years to get off the drawing board I think Adobe and Microsoft *might* have a little bit of time to offer something competitive. - Gumphlumph, on 06/18/2009, -0/+4Don't know why all the hostility against Flash. Flash has a role and when used properly, it can be very effective. The big problem is that half the people using it don't know how to use it properly, or use it in the most mundane fashion because they think they need an animated intro to their site.
I develop movie sites and games in flash, and functional sites in php and sql. You use the appropriate tool for the job; the problem is morons trying to push square pegs into round holes.
Btw - "Click "Open Sumo Paint..." on the left. This is what a proper RIA looks like. Not that cheesy flash ***** that fills the internet. HTML5 does not even begin to approach this level of sophistication." - ummm, Sumo Paint is built in flash. Your point is? - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -1/+5Uhm you mean like applets? I personally find JSP and Servlets to be great
- dalittle, on 06/17/2009, -0/+4People had your attitude about xml back in the day, but look at it now. As it bakes in, html5 may very well kill off silverlight, but it may take a while.
- logicbus, on 06/17/2009, -0/+4I see no mention in the article or this thread of Flash's permissions issue. The comic Google put out when Chrome launched addressed it:
http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/small_28. ...
Plugins like Flash are apt to run at a permission level higher than that of the browser itself. Doing away with Flash would allow the browser to manage vulnerabilities more effectively.
Also, I anticipate performance improvements, i.e., A page full of video tags would scroll more smoothly than a similar page full of Flash content. - jmferris, on 06/17/2009, -0/+4Correct. But Silverlight was lumped in with Flash, which is the same point I was trying to make. Comparing Silverlight to Flash is shortsighted, to say the least.
- ivanmarsh, on 06/17/2009, -11/+15Good! Flash sucks.
- 4321234, on 06/17/2009, -0/+4I imagine google could crawl and index html 5 better than it could with content in flash silverlight etc. That should be at least one major backer.
- revenz, on 06/18/2009, -1/+5i dont see anything that needs it to be 100% flash. i could have loaded and closed the page a lot quicker if it was html
- amitait, on 06/17/2009, -2/+5No.
- chameleon789, on 06/17/2009, -0/+3cool, thank.
- collution, on 06/17/2009, -0/+3Certainly won't kill these technologies, especially Flash. Flash is just around in far too many places for it to go away easily. Also with AIR around, it's become an even stronger force. I with AIR would kill Java though, although it just isn't there yet.. It would be great if Java didn't have so much memory headroom, AIR as well but I guess that comes at the cost of processor independence.
- bgolat, on 06/17/2009, -1/+4Doubt it.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/17/2009, -1/+4xhtml uses the same tags as html, but conforms to an xml style.
html 5 merely adds more to html. - borez, on 06/17/2009, -1/+4Well of course it's not the fault of flash, the same way a movies content is not the fault of its film stock. I do understand this.
- vbullinger, on 06/17/2009, -1/+4Okay, so you don't like Microsoft. We get it. But to say that it will kill Silverlight but not JavaFX? Really stretching it, there.
- chipxsd, on 06/18/2009, -1/+3talphin: that site actually proves full flash sites suck. Although this site also uses an intuitive interface: http://www.leoburnett.com/ I still don't like it...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is