Haha! Oh my God...seriously..."Flash killer"? Hey, the 90s are calling and they want their hackneyed phrases back, along with your uninformed and constricted opinion.

Flash could be replaced by HTML5 about as much as it can be replaced by HTML now. Every time I read analysis like this I'm reminded of how little people really know about Flash and why HTML5 couldn't possibly replace it. Here are just a few reasons why this article doesn't really know what it's talking about:

1. Standardization. The old Java "write once, run anywhere" concept is much more applicable to Flash which runs on just about all browsers, mobiles (including iOS), and desktops (through AIR). Coming from a single vendor ensures that the Flash/AIR player run exactly the same way regardless of platform (if you believe this concept works for Apple then you must necessarily believe it works for Adobe, and that pudding has been proven). HTML5 has already fractured across even just the few browsers that support it now. IE is different from Chrome is different from Safari is different from Firefox. A great example is one of the latest Google doodles (the 3D hanging mobile art one) -- only supported on Chrome. This will only get worse with time.

2. Sockets -- all binary sockets are supported, instantly opening Flash up to be used in a wide variety of applications. HTML5 still only supports AJAX through JavaScript (which is also fractious).

3. Low level binary support. This includes the ability to read/write audio, video, and image data across the whole stage (or canvas / display area) of the Flash application.

4. Low-level 3D support through AGAL, a shader language similar to DirectX or OpenGL. WebGL is already dead in the water, once again because of it's fractious support across browsers.

5. Continued development. HTML5 has been in the pipeline for ages simply because it's a community standard (which makes its piecemeal adoption even more laughable). By the time it finally got around to some level of public support, Flash had progressed by at least 3 versions. This pace of advancement will continue into the foreseeable future, and HTML5 will always be playing catch up.

Basically, as a "standard", HTML5 has failed miserably on just about every aspect. It has certainly made strides forward and is a viable option for many things that previously used Flash, mostly basic/annoying things like ads or simple animations. Even I've promoted HTML as an option when basic functionality was required and could be guaranteed to work well across all browsers (very very rare for anything complex). Beyond this, however, what can be done with HTML/JavaScript now won't be much different from what HTML5/JavaScript can do tomorrow, and to suggest that Flash could replace it, or that Adobe would undercut one of its heavily invested flagship technologies (the Flash Platform has many other components than just the Flash player), is a ludicrous statement.

Oh, and if you're going to use "Flash killer" in your headline, you may try, maybe, not negating yourself with statements like "it is not a direct replacement for Flash".

How does a technology magazine allow uniformed and poorly written drivel like this to demean their site?

• Sent on 01 Aug 2011

Hi Patrick, - Your mother called. She is looking for her idiot son. Seriously, it is you who are so far out of the loop as demonstrated by your lengthy and name-dropping rant. The age of confusing and dense learning curve software is quickly coming to an end. Flash is effectively dead. It's main flaw is its inefficient use of the CPU. It is bloated and proprietary. Adobe abused this proprietary nature and alienated most end-users. Flash needed to be destroyed. Check back with me in one year and even such a bright person as yourself will be surprised at how little the composition of the web will resemble today's. I imagine you probably miss writing DOS scripts because of the 'power' you wielded! It may be time for you to move away from the computer and go outside and play. Do not bother responding. I will not be back.

• Sent on 01 Aug 2011

This stuff about "flash being effectively dead" is just developers playing politics...again.

In what way is it dead? You (and Apple) WANT browsers to stop supporting Flash. But that would make a lot of things impossible that are now possible. HTML5 etc simply cannot do the same things with the same efficiently. It's what's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This stuff about "dense learning curve software". Dense Apple advocates more like. It's very easy to learn Flash and Actionscript.

Flash doesn't have to be used for whole sites (though it can, easily) but is very effective for some applications and games. And it works NOW, unlike HTML5.

It's just ignorant hype and politics, dressed up as "being in the loop" by tiresome posters on webdev forums.

• Sent on 01 Aug 2011

@Patrick, I agree it's no foregone conclusion that Edge will replace Flash in the long term. However, it is a distinct possibility. There are complelling technical issues too which mean that it probably will too according to this article.

Ultimately, though, HTML5 is a Web standard, and Adobe Flash is a proprietary development platform. That alone should eventually dictate that HTML5 will surpass Adobe Flash and reign as the dominant platform for Web-based animation and interactive content.

Then there's the major issue of Flash being banned by Apple on iPad's and iPhones - Adobe simply can't afford to ignore a market as big as that. With Edge, Adobe have acknowledged that they simply cannot force a proprietery standard on the industry anymore and HTML5 is a more open, powerful and acceptable alternative for all manufacturers whatever its limitations may be now. I hope this goes someway to justifying the "drivel" in this post.

• Sent on 02 Aug 2011

gom player dowmload

• Sent on 09 Sep 2011

Comment

• Your comment:
• Your name:
• Your email: