Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnnybgoode | Hacker News Reader

That's some great spin there. The only good argument they have is that HTML5 will take a while. Compared to HTML5, Flash isn't so much better that it's worth sacrificing openness to use it. We'll have libraries that take care of the cross-browser differences. Sure, there will be problems along the way, but it'll be worth it to kill Flash.

View on HN

"some great spin" is being put too mildly. Looks like they don't know what HTML5 is nor the state of its support in current browsers: pretty much all (but IE, of course) already have some support for it. Not sure how that makes minority of browsers, not to mention, that browsers on the new smartphones which are worth something are Webkit based—and that means support for HTML5. Apple specifically advertises HTML5 and CSS3 on its Safari webpage ( http://www.apple.com/safari/what-is.html ).

I completely fail to see how the release of iPhone "helped to radically increase the number of phones with Flash support". If it did help something this is to realize that we can do just fine without Flash.

So no, you don't need to wait ten years before HTML5 arrives, it is already on your doorstep (have you seen Google Wave?). There will be no wait, so "during that wait, Flash becomes more and more powerful" doesn't come to fruition. Adobe still cannot make Flash to run without hogging resources on anything but Windows, do they think I will buy this "more powerful" crap?

I don't think that HTML5 will kill Flash though, but if it forces Flash out of the places there it does not belong (full flash sites, flash navigation, etc.) Web will be a better place and I will be a lot happier.

Part of the anti-HTML5 crowd is more about simplicity and ease of tools. While you and I may understand HTML5 and it's underlying technologies (ECMA4, CSS3), it's confusing to developers who don't understand the reasoning behind certain features. Like the CSS vs. Tables argument, Flash seems easier to do glitzy effects, and have it supported by all browsers.

That said, I'm all for HTML5. Whenever YouTube officially supports the video tag, I'll me more than happy to uncheck that "Enable Plugins" on my browser preferences.

In case you haven't seen it, it looks like they're interested: http://www.youtube.com/html5

Important to remember that where Microsoft's strategy is to compete with flash via silverlight, Google's was just to build a new browser and create a better HTML by hiring all the people important in the process and throw its weight behind them.

So, yes, youtube is interested in HTML5 video, for the same reason google is interested in Chrome.

I think the fundamental problem here is that we, as true hackers, place too much emphases on the importance of openness. I'd argue that, for the average developer, strong design tools and the promise of cross-browser consistency is well worth sacrificing openness.

I see what you're saying, but I wasn't coming at it from a Stallmanesque openness-for-openness's-sake angle. Openness is also important as a guarantee, particularly in this case. For example, and this might sound like something RMS would say, we should be able to display Web content on some new device, without depending on Adobe to develop and maintain support for a version of Flash Player for that device.

Why should the "open web" depend on Adobe or any one company to do something you need?

I totally appreciate the value of "open", but pragmatically, it simply doesn't matter.

Every modern PC or Mac has Flash. Developers and, more importantly, "webmasters" (implying lack of technical skill) can rely on it being there.

OK, so the iPhone doesn't have Flash. How many web pages are broken really? Much fewer than you'd think. But even when broken pages affect the average user, they don't think "Damn you Adobe!" nor do they say "The people who run this site are stupid!" and they certainly don't blame Apple who makes this device they love so much. Believe it or not, the average user immediately assumes they personally did something wrong or are completely unsensitive to the problem. "Hmmm, I guess this page doesn't work on my phone... I'll show you later."

Openness solves engineering problems. Users don't understand engineering problems. More over, openness solves FUTURE engineering problems. Most people aren't sensitive to problems affecting them tomorrow, much less problems affecting the greater web community 5 years from now.

OK, but wouldn't it be better if the pages just worked for the user? That seems more important than being able to escape the blame. As you said, openness solves future engineering problems. I think that matters pragmatically.

It would be even better if when viewing a page that is only a flash object Safari on the iphone would have some sort of message saying that Flash is not supported on the iPhone. Of course that is advertising for flash...

Wow. Apparently this comment was so bad that my other comment got down voted for it...

All I was trying to say that is that the average person is not sensitive to the same problems as "us". Flash isn't going to die because too many people just don't care about what we see as wrong with it.

On a side note: Personally, I'd rather see Flash go open than die. I value competition.

> Every modern PC or Mac has Flash

Mine don't, and not through (my) choice. And neither do either of my phone handsets (Freerunner, HTC Dream). Flash is a pain in my arse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com