HTML 5 Takes Aim At Flash and Silverlight 500
snydeq writes "While Adobe, Microsoft, and Sun duke it out with proprietary technologies for implementing multimedia on the Web, HTML 5 has the potential to eat these vendors' lunches, offering Web experiences based on an industry standard. In fact, one expressed goal of the standard is to move the Web away from proprietary technologies such as Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX. '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,' says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson, a Google employee. But whether HTML 5 and its Canvas technology will displace proprietary plug-ins 'really depends on what developers do,' says Firefox technical lead Vlad Vukicevic. It also depends on Microsoft, the only company involved in the HTML 5 effort that is both a browser developer and an RIA tool developer. 'That's a big elephant in the room for them because you can imagine the Silverlight team [whose] whole existence is to add [this] functionality in. [But] if Internet Explorer puts it already in there, why do we have Silverlight?' asks Mozilla's Dion Almaer." The RIA guys are quoted as saying they're not worried, because HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out. Are they just whistling in the dark?
The most recently "RIA Weekly" podcast... (Score:1, Interesting)
...which is #52 here [redmonk.com] talked about JavaFX and its prospects for a bit. One of the guys had just gotten back from JavaOne and was talking about the vibe he was getting about JavaFX. Larry Ellison apparently commented favorably about it, so, whatever that means.
RIA Weekly is a good podcast - Michael Cote is a savvy guy and he always has good discussions with his cohosts/interviewees. AAAA+ would buy again.
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.
I was under the impression that canvas tag was going to allow people to create those kinds of whiz-bang interfaces that are currently done in flash.
HTML5 is awesome (Score:3, Interesting)
HTML5, with canvas, is fantastic (Score:5, Interesting)
I've recently embarked upon a hobby project where I'm only targeting the latest browsers, excluding IE8.
Not until now have I realized how much we web developers are hampered by IE. Canvas and Javascript are a highly capable platform for interactive graphics, and it works across browsers and operating systems without issue. Chromium on Linux for example, incomplete as it is, works with canvas out of the box (not to mention about 10 times faster than FF in executing Javascript).
The ability to create web pages quickly, using convenient CSS2 and 3 rules, the ability to use piles and piles of Javascript without worry, the ability to have everything just work across my target browsers, it's utterly amazing. If we weren't stuck in this damn backwater due to having to support IE, the web would be a far more compelling platform.
I absolutely cannot wait for the day when HTML5 and CSS3 are widely supported and adopted, but will that day ever come? Surely Microsoft realizes, as I have, how much potential is here, and I don't doubt that some of the higher ups would hold IE back so that developers are forced to use their plugins in order to deliver their content.
For those projects that don't care about IE support, HTML5 canvas/video/audio is a fantastic leap forward for the web. For the rest, business as usual for some time to come I'm afraid.
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
While I don't agree with how the grandparent phrased it; I'd say it's spot on. Canvas tag or not, the editing tool has to allow artists, hobbiest, etc... to easilly create content and publish to the web for others to see.
Flash's biggest win over Silverlight is:
1) Install base
2) Defacto web animation tool
If enough browser pentration occurs for the install base then the editing tool is the last big hurdle.
My predictions (as a C++, Flash developer):
1. Silverlight takes a larger market share than Flash in 3 years (in 2013)
2. HTML5 overtakes both in 5 years (2015) if a "killer app" for editing comes into existance by 2012.
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let's get on with it! HTML 5.0 Now!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Ick, you have to ask? For starters it's a round parenthesis language like C, Java, and other icky goo.
Well, it does have prototypes so it's not all totally lost.
Heck, even C is getting blocks now with llvm and clang over at apple - grand central dispatch relies upon lambda blocks like smalltalk has for decades.
If you like javascript that's great, good for you. It's just not for all of us who prefer other languages. That's were the chrome native binary api comes in with the browsers. It let's us download natively compiled components written in OUR FAVORITE language - whatever it happens to be - and we're then not restricted by the goo and ick in the javascript. It also means that our existing code bases can be utilized in the browsers even if it's C, Objective-C, C++, Smalltalk, Perl, LISP, Forth, ERlang, ... ... ... and so on....
It's about FREEDOM of choice for ME the developer rather than icky javascript being FORCED upon me as it has been for the last decade and a half or whatever it's been....
As for youtube they have too much power... decentralize now with the video and audio tags!
RIAs have common runtimes, browsers do not (Score:5, Interesting)
The big problem with HTML5/JavaScript/CSS is that each browser has quirky behaviours that need to be tested. Even if Internet Explorer no longer existed, developers would have to test against Firefox, Safari, Chrome and maybe Opera. An example of a quirk is Safari not recognizing table element widths in percentages. A Flash developer tests against one Flash runtime, same with a Silverlight developer and a JavaFX developer.
Adobe released a beta of a multiple browser runtime testing tool, but it's apparently very flawed.
So until the above problems are solved, many RIA developers will simply use Flex, Silverlight or JavaFX, instead of coding for a hodge-podge of different browsers.
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
once this is built into the browsers it could be used to created an editor such as this without the need to reverse engineer or license junk
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure. Anyone whose determined it is in their interest to support HTML5 + Javascript as an alternative to Flash has an interest in seeing that it gets used, so everyone that has been embracing HTML5 for browsers -- Google, Apple, Mozilla, and Opera, just to name the browser publishers -- also has an interest in creating tooling to make sure that HTML5 doesn't just sit around unused in favor of Flash and Silverlight.
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:1, Interesting)
What is Popfly? O_o .......... No, I'm serious.
We independent developers decide that ... (Score:4, Interesting)
if you make it good, and we like it, you'd be surprised how fast proprietary technology gets replaced. look at PHP. many of you who work corporate may not be aware, but PHP dominates the majority of sites that belong to individuals and small businesses now. check elance, rentacoder, etc - you'll find that the demand for php projects at least quadruples anything closest.
how did it happen ?
people liked it. it was adequate (then), it was free, it allows you to do anything (now). period. it took off.
before any of you language nazis come up and start trolling about how you dont like php syntax, how there are more 'elite' languages out there, and how php is 'not a language' etc, i should say - i dont give a flying fuck. neither do millions of people who utilize it and who develop on it. so keep it.
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.
As a professional "graphics artist type" I take a offense at that. What if I were to ask about the computer coders types making the kind of buggy crap they do now with [whatever language you like]?
Don't blame me for the ugly crap made by my less talented brethren and I won't blame you for the unstable, insecure crap made by yours. No-talent assclowns are no-talent assclowns, regardless of profession.
This graphics artist type (full disclosure: I may get paid for design, but my hobby is programming so I'm sort of an odd duck), for one, is very excited at the potential of HTML5. I look forward to a world where I can make animations for the web and embed videos and whatnot without having to muck around with stupid Flash/Silverlight/Java/whatever. I HATE Flash, I HATE Silverlight more, I HATE Java the most, and anything I can't name off the top of my head can go STRAIGHT to hell. I do see where the parent is coming from though. I see a lot of designers building sites in Flash just because they lack the analytical skills to wrap their overdeveloped right hemispheres around using CSS and (X)HTML. To design a website that isn't just pretty, but is actually good takes more than a good creative sense.
These days everyone and their brother and their cat might think they're a web designer, but most of them aren't. They're just some guy with a pirated copy of Photoshop. Rest assured that there are web designers out there who know what they're doing.
Re:What about the browsers? (Score:4, Interesting)
The 10 year timeframe is for going to REC. Which means there are two complete interoperable implementations.
Unlike previous W3C standards, this time they're not going to publish as final it until they have evidence that it can actually be implemented, and by more than one development team. That's been a major issue with CSS2, for example: the long time CSS2.1 has been taking has been largely about fixing things that were underdefined, contradictory, or just wrong (in the sense of not making any sense) in CSS2 and that were discovered when people went to actually implement the spec.
Re:Developers, developers ... and authoring tools (Score:3, Interesting)
I can only hope that the guys that are doing Inkscape [inkscape.org] will consider something along these lines.
Why is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
But seriously, why can't we look at this in terms of the development doors that will be opened, and not mind the fact that RIA content will someday probably fall by the wayside? Progress happens, and those companies/individuals/organizations that fail to adapt fall behind and eventually wither. I think we can all agree that HTML5 has the potential to be awesome, let's approach it in terms of how to make it as awesome as it can be, instead of wringing our hands over the fates of the poor, defenseless multinational corporations.
Isn't search a factor? (Score:5, Interesting)
WebKit vs. IE (Score:5, Interesting)
For the past two years, I've been telling everyone the new browser war is between IE and WebKit. WebKit has become the default platform for the mobile browser market (iPhone using Safari and Android and Palm using their version). One of the big reasons Apple started WebKit was to keep the browsing platform out of the hands of a single vendor. It's not that Apple doesn't like proprietary technology. It's that they don't like proprietary technology that they depend upon and don't control.
The battle for HTML 5 vs. Silverlight vs. Flash will be on the mobile platform. It's easy for Silverlight and Adobe to create a desktop application that work with 90% of the desktops (and a bit more work to get another 9%). However, the world is changing. Adobe and Microsoft can't create Silverlight and Flash clients for every single possible mobile platform. The trick is to get enough HTML 5 clients out there that it'll be worth it for developers to learn HTML 5. If enough developers pick up HTML 5, companies will make IDEs for HTML 5.
If that happens, Flash and Silverlight will go away. The other possibility is that Apple will buy Adobe and open source Flash. Apple loves open source standards because it means that they'll be able to sell all the neat gadgets that work with these standards.
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see why it would be less profitable. They don't charge for the Flash client, only for the authoring tools.
Even if Silverlight were to take over, as long as Adobe makes a decent tool for creating Silverlight projects, they'll make close to the same amount. Although come to think of it, they may lose some sales only because they don't "own" the technology in consumers' eyes, and many consumers would buy Microsoft if they could anyway.
But since HTML5 is not owned by a company, it puts Adobe on equal footing with any other company making an editor. Consumers would be able to choose their editor, and Adobe has a well-established footing in the market. If they just changed their product to output HTML5 instead of or in addition to a swf file, they'll keep their strangehold on the editor market.
Sun uses Flash (Score:4, Interesting)
Flash is de-facto standard for a reason (Score:5, Interesting)
That huge framework install with all the functionality still hurts quicktime, in case of Windows Media, you have already got it forcibly installed and it also uses undocumented goods of Windows to perform better. Linux? No official support. Real? Well, people still think it is spyware even while it is open source.
All these tools are in fact superior to Flash for embedding video, especially Real Player is really in 11th generation. Why they fail? Because they don't have Adobe design tools for use of real artists (designers) and they are still STUPID (hear me Apple) to add additional stuff to that already bulky download.
I always feel sad for using Flash to embed videos with the functionality missing from it but as I can't tell people to "download 30 mb application" or "give up your IE and use that open source browser" (sorry!), I embed Flash.
That was my point. Quicktime is a great technology being wasted by couple of idiots at Apple Inc. You know, the idiots insisted on asking $$$ for full screen playback for years. They couldn't seperate the "player" and "recorder"... They owned 80% of video market share back in worst days of Apple, can you believe?
Re:It's the tools stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
You have to be kidding about Silverlight overtaking Flash..
Wait until everyone and their pets switched to win7 and silverlight is an "inseperably" embedded into it.
Netscape, Real Media was killed this way.
Re:400M Silverlight installs (Score:5, Interesting)
Major League Baseball Advanced Media totally botched the transition not once, but twice. When switching from Flash to Silverlight last year their new Silverlight-based streaming player didn't work, leaving paying customers without service for days. This year they decided to switched back to a Flash-based player ON OPENING DAY. Unfortunately, the new player doesn't work either, and in many ways was worse than the silverlight player, requiring additional installation plugins for HD capabilities, and left these same paying customers without the opening day experience they're paying for two years in a row.
New York Times Reader was a different case. It worked fairly well, but NYT got thoroughly flamed for introducing the reader for windows only, basing it on WPF's FlowDocument capabilities which aren't available for the Mac. Similar text features are eventually going to make it into Silverlight, but things like Printing are a much higher priority for the SL guys. The silverlight version of the reader used a complicated templating system rather than true adaptive text layout. Adobe's Text Layout Framework may not have been the first to market, but that + Flex + AIR are the first to bring it to a wider audience and may ultimately resonate more.
Also I'm sure politics played a prevalent role in both cases, especially in the case of NYT where the Mac User's vitriol for anything microsoft played out.
MLB 2008
http://www.pcworld.com/article/144035/mlbs_web_video_strikes_out_on_opening_day.html [pcworld.com]
MLB 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/major-league-baseball-str_b_185158.html [huffingtonpost.com]
NYT:
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/1424-new-york-times-switches-from-wpfsilverlight-to-flash-for-reader-2.html [itwriting.com]
Re:400M Silverlight installs (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you have to worry in the first place?
It's perfectly natural to see projects switch technologies periodically. MLB has bounced between technologies for years and they may again based on their experiences this year.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10215761-93.html [cnet.com]
Most of the big companies who have done Silverlight continue to do it, and we're certainly seeing plenty of media companies switching from Flash to Silverlight, and a bunch more once Silverlight 3 is launched with compatibility with F4V (Flash H.264) files.
And from a market share perspective all we need is one great Silverlight site for each user. It's not like someone needs to uninstall Flash to run Silverlight; it's not a zero-sum game.
I'm quite pleased with the current rate of adoption, myself. I'm obviously not going to announce new official numbers here, but there's plenty of sites that track these things that'll give you a sense of the velocity of install rate.
HTML5 audio/video will be an epic fail (Score:3, Interesting)
For several reasons:
1. Microsoft doesn't give a shit about it. Therefore enterprise users won't give a shit.
2. Even if Microsoft does give a shit, neither Apple nor Microsoft will support Ogg Theora. Therefore Linux is SOL again.
3. Apply #1 and 2 to audio standards as well. No common, open, royalty free, pre-installed standard across all platforms == epic fail.
The main power of Flash right now is that once you install the plugin, you might as well forget all that BS about paying for codecs on all three major platforms. It's all in there. It's convenient. It's sufficient.
Re:400M Silverlight installs (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been 400M downloads of Silverlight so far.
Silverlight is included in many updates to Windows XP. At a company I worked for fairly recently, the windows admin ticked the box to install silverlight on some 100+ PCs. No one at that company ever used it while employed there (the company has since gone bust). With Silverlight being included in basic Windows XP upgrades, I'd say it's very likely the vast majority of the 400M "downloads" you cite has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Silverlight adoption or usage.
Apples vs. Oranges; but you've got a point (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, /if/ your content is the type that can be presented in a text-oriented, page-by-page manner, then creating simple, barebones HTML pages is smart coding.
But every design has its limits. Try pushing at the edges of HTML, and it gets painful, fast. On one project I audited, we were spending 75% of our coding time on browser workarounds. Switching to a RIA was a huge time-saver. At the edges of user interface design, HTML compatibility is thoroughly broken.
However, your instinct that the simplest designs are usually the best is spot-on. This is exactly kind of back-to-the-basics thinking that is behind REST, Atom, JSON, and other web-centric techniques.
Re:Apples vs. Oranges; but you've got a point (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, that's not the case. It's just a matter of using markup to structure your documents, and then letting CSS handle the display. That doesn't mean you can't use sticky footer techniques (like the one Paul O'Brien uses on SitePoint), Gilder/Levin image substitution techniques, or even advanced floating methods that literally rearrange the content so that you have floats on one part of the page floating underneath content on another part of the page even though there's another content block (or three) in between them.
And yes, I am aware of issues that plague even the most advanced designs; and how sometimes you have to use hacks to compensate for the failures of a browser (not just IE, but Firefox, Opera, and Safari/Chrome as well) to render things properly. (Don't believe me about Firefox? Look up Bugzilla 915 [mozilla.org] one of these days.)
Given that I've been doing this since 2002, I should know that every design has its limits; it's a limitation of the medium, not the languages used. As I tell everyone, HTML is for structure, CSS is for presentation, and client-side scripting is for behavior. While there is overlap between the three (as there should be with any healthy symbiotic relationship), they do have their own jobs and when used properly, they can achieve results that would otherwise be impossible with HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
But I'm one of those people who debugs as he goes along in all browsers - first with the HTML to ensure that the markup is structurally sound, then the CSS to ensure that the appearance is practically the same in all browsers made in this century (I'm a user-centric developer who prefers to put the people who will use the Web site first, rather than a designer's ego - but that doesn't mean designs can't look great while working well), and finally the scripting (script by script) to make sure that nothing's broken there either. Taking that kind of approach allows me to reduce the time spent debugging by nearly 95%. I've also found that most of the problems I have (and this isn't true for everyone) will be in the HTML itself, and that by modifying the markup slightly I can get it to work in all browsers, rather than piling on hack after hack after hack that I have to check again and again whenever a new browser, browser version or layout engine is released.
Oh, as for pushing at the limits of HTML? There really aren't any limits if you use it as a structural markup language because of the rules in place. The real limits to be pushed are with CSS and JavaScript - that's where the real magic is.
At which point I would dare say you're not creating a Web site, but an application. Two completely different environments (with their own sets of rules) co-existing in the same medium. (As someone who once had to make a Web site look 100% identical to a Flex app in all browsers, I should know.)
As I've said before, even rich graphics intensive designs can be done using POSH (Plain Old Semantic HTML). Yeah, you may need a few container hooks, but given that multiple backgrounds and other CSS3 properties aren't properly implemented in all browsers yet, I can live with it for now. (Though I don't know how much more I can take - I want my CSS3 fix now, damnit!)