Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jun 2010 15:36 UTC
Internet & Networking Earlier this week, Apple launched a HTML5 Showcase page, displaying several uses for HTML5 and related technologies. However, it turns out that Apple is using trickery to block out browsers other than Safari, with the end result that browsers with better support for web standards than Safari can't access the demos.
Order by: Score:
#Fail
by boulabiar on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:03 UTC
boulabiar
Member since:
2009-04-18

I have chrome 6 dev, and I am really surprised by this blocking.
(They Blocked the most html5 advanced browser my God !!)

I have tried accessing demos using other means like looking inside code source of main page and fetching the URLs but I failed to get pages.

Apple is really blocking other browsers for non reason (or for a ridiculous reason)

Reply Score: 2

v Chrome is working
by Envying1 on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:03 UTC
RE: Chrome is working
by Shkaba on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:15 UTC in reply to "Chrome is working"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

This is clear bull***, I don't know if this is a standard practice, but their browser sniffing is very invasive. And NO it does not work with Chrome, Opera, FF, or IE in WinXP

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Chrome is working
by godawful on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Chrome is working"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

So we're outraged that we can't look at a webpage that is viewable from the 4.9% of people who use safari?
yes.. frothing outrage is the appropriate response and not a *shrug*

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Chrome is working
by Shkaba on Fri 4th Jun 2010 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chrome is working"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

You are so missing the point! If a reference to a standard is made, then there should be no limitations otherwise standard ceases to be a standard

Reply Score: 5

Comment by veso
by veso on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:05 UTC
veso
Member since:
2007-03-27

Check this:
http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/
works fine with linux chrome except vr demo

Reply Score: 6

Works in Chromium too.
by RichterKuato on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by veso"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

I can confirm this also works in Chromium 5.0.375.55.
Like you said the only one that doesn't work is the VR demo. Also, the audio and video elements don't seem to be working either. (and yes chromium does support MP4 through libavcodec)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by veso
by Timmmm on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by veso"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

Yep, they mostly work in chrome. This is a big fuss over nothing. Sure it would have been nice if they added a 'continue anyway' button, but they're just some tech demos. They are probably using lots of -webkit-something: css attributes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by veso
by PresentIt on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by veso"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

No, the fuss is that Apple is lying. First of all, it hardly shows any HTML5 at all, and secondly it tries to falsely give the impression that Safari is the only "real HTML5 browser".

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by veso - Apple's website
by jabbotts on Fri 4th Jun 2010 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by veso"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

On Apple's own website!! The nerve!

It does kind of suck but at the same time it's Apple's marketing website; exclusionary tactics and spin should be assumed.

Now, if it was w3c's html5 page excluding all but Safari.. that would cause me some questions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by veso
by nt_jerkface on Sat 5th Jun 2010 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by veso"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

That's probably because Chrome's user agent string claims to be based on Safari for compatibility reasons.
http://www.useragentstring.com/Chrome4.0.222.4_id_15033.php

Reply Score: 2

Old dogs, old tricks!
by bannor99 on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:14 UTC
bannor99
Member since:
2005-09-15

Is anyone here shocked by this? Unfortunately, it probably won't mean much as this won't register with Joe Sixpack, who probably doesn't know HTML from HTTP.

In my opinion, deceptions like this should be subject to DMCA takedowns. Maybe that piece of crap legislation might have a use after all.

Reply Score: 6

Still unclear
by Kilogramm on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:17 UTC
Kilogramm
Member since:
2010-05-04

It is still unclear how good HTML5 implementations will be compared to Flash and Silverlight. Browsers have been relatively slow at rendering content so far.

Everybody complains about Flash, but we don't know yet how well comparable HTML content will be rendered. I would say HTML/CSS/JS combo is going to be much worse performance wise than dedicated RIA platforms.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:32 UTC in reply to "Still unclear"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It does not matter one bit how good Flash and Silverlight are.

Tell me, why did Google go through all the trouble of compiling Java code into an insane mess of HTML and JavaScript—full of hacks for faulty browsers—instead of just serving users a Java app? Or Flash? Or Adobe AIR? Or Silverlight? All those technologies are far more capable than HTML!

It doesn’t matter how much better any of those technologies are, they are not the web. They do not evolve in the same way and they have all failed in solving _basic_ accessibility and the right for the user to decide how they want to view their page according to their requirements.

The web is simply better for _users_. Not for ad-men and designers who like to over do the lensflare.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still unclear
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
yoshi314@gmail.com Member since:
2009-12-14

--comment in a wrong place

Edited 2010-06-04 16:45 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Still unclear
by Kilogramm on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
Kilogramm Member since:
2010-05-04

The web is the totality of all things, not only those approved by the W3C. If we stuck only to the W3C we would not have YouTube, Facebook, Hulu.

Let the users decide what is best. I myself prefer things that first of all work, and second of all work well. W3C politics is very low on my and many people's lists of priorities.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Opera invented the video tag. Apple invented the canvas tag. Microsoft invented ContentEditable and XMLHTTPRequest.

The web is the sum of healthy competition with browser vendors coming up with ideas and providing them in a way everybody can implement.

Total IE domination ensured that there was no more features for the web, which is why Flash became the mainstay for video. The healthier market we have now immediately shows the difference with how quickly features are being adopted across all browsers. Had we had a healthy market back in 2003, then there’s no reason to not believe that HTML video couldn’t have been implemented then. Microsoft could have not cared less, was the problem.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Still unclear
by PresentIt on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still unclear"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

What's funny is that Opera also invented HTML5. Or, they started the project that became HTML5.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Still unclear
by kaiwai on Fri 4th Jun 2010 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still unclear"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

What's funny is that Opera also invented HTML5. Or, they started the project that became HTML5.


I can't believe you just said that; I am really shocked.

Opera did not 'create' or 'start' or anything related to HTML5. HTML5 has been in development before the johnny came lately finally got its act together and fix its browser - which by the way still royally sucks. Still using QuickDraw, still heavily Carbon dependent, doesn't work with websites I need, no out of process plugin separation or tab process separation etc. When in doubt, it seems that Opera whines, whines and whines.

So yes, HTML5 has been in development and as Kroc pointed out it is made up of many parts - not just your beloved video and audio tags that you seem to get hyped up about. Those two tags are minuscule compared to the other features being added.

Edited 2010-06-04 23:27 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Still unclear
by Neolander on Sat 5th Jun 2010 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still unclear"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

So yes, HTML5 has been in development and as Kroc pointed out it is made up of many parts - not just your beloved video and audio tags that you seem to get hyped up about. Those two tags are minuscule compared to the other features being added.

Like the knowingly extremely fast Canvas component ?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Still unclear
by oinet on Sun 6th Jun 2010 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
RE[4]: Still unclear
by Shannara on Mon 7th Jun 2010 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still unclear"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Lying does not make it true. Quit trolling.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Still unclear
by oinet on Mon 7th Jun 2010 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still unclear"
oinet Member since:
2010-03-23

Lying does not make it true. Quit trolling.


Nice, but don't credit me with your own accomplishments.

What am I lying about exactly ? be specific.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Still unclear
by Shannara on Mon 7th Jun 2010 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still unclear"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Well lets see ... Hulu has nothing to do with "The Web" ... ? Seriously? You must have been kidding.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Still unclear
by oinet on Mon 7th Jun 2010 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still unclear"
oinet Member since:
2010-03-23

No, I was not kidding. Hulu has nothing to do with "the web", but "the american web". Any other questions ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Still unclear
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Jun 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The web is the totality of all things, not only those approved by the W3C. If we stuck only to the W3C we would not have YouTube, Facebook, Hulu. Let the users decide what is best. I myself prefer things that first of all work, and second of all work well. W3C politics is very low on my and many people's lists of priorities.


Depending on exactly what you define as "the web" it may or may not be only those standards approved by the W3C.

This does absolutely nothing to change the fact that HTML5 is a W3C standard. The totality of HTML5 IS only that which is approved by the W3C.

W3C patent policy (which includes its policy for HTML5) is here:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
The W3C Patent Policy governs the handling of patents in the process of producing Web standards. The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.


Therefore h.264 support (for example) is NOT HTML5. Period. Never was, never will be.

Edited 2010-06-07 00:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still unclear
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yes it does. The needs of people are real, despite the fact that HTML5 and other open standards offerings have no caught up. The lack of progress on that front does not make the problems of everyday users disappear.

HTML5 or not, people are going to want RIAs, and even HTML5 if implemented perfectly in every browser, would not come close to offering the level of productivity Silverlight does.

We're holding back progress for the sake of ubiquity, and it's laughable how far ahead Silverlight is for RIAs and video.

The video tag will never gain critical mass without support for a protected path, there's just no way you're going to convince content providers to do so.

I think the browser vendors could be more productive in getting HTML5 interactive demos running above a few frames a second before trashing RIA platforms like Silverlight and AIR (Yes, even AIR, and AIR sucks.)

HTML5 is gaining ubiquity in name only. The place where HTML5 is most prevalent, an entire mobile thicket of websites coded for the iPhone using -webkit- extensions. Is that really the kind of same markup you want? You're creating the same situation IE created for itself years ago.

It does matter how much faster Silverlight is (dramatically faster, in case you didn't know), at least to pragmatic employers who want an RIA which isn't constrained by the ridiculous monolithic processes at the W3C.

The issue of accessibility was tackled in Silverlight.. since Silverlight 2..

The UI Automation framework has built in support for screen readers. Silverlight also supports robust keyboard navigation capabilities.

Silverlight supports browser zooming (which is vector based and works better than even Html content).

For high contrast you can either write your own style or apply a pixel shader to the screen (as of SL3).

A lot of the so called issues with Silverlight are fabricated. Plain and simple

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Still unclear
by PresentIt on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

The needs of people are real, despite the fact that HTML5 and other open standards offerings have no caught up. The lack of progress on that front does not make the problems of everyday users disappear.

Lack of progress? LOL.

We're holding back progress for the sake of ubiquity

No, what's holding back progress is stuff like Flash and Silverlight. These are extremely restrictive. Have you seen what it's finally possible to do with native video support in browsers? Flash and Silverlight could only dream of that.

The video tag will never gain critical mass without support for a protected path, there's just no way you're going to convince content providers to do so.

The most popular video site on the web is moving to HTML5.

I think the browser vendors could be more productive in getting HTML5 interactive demos running above a few frames a second before trashing RIA platforms like Silverlight and AIR (Yes, even AIR, and AIR sucks.)

So, you clearly haven't seen the latest browser demos.

Silverlight supports browser zooming (which is vector based and works better than even Html content).

Silverlight is a dead end.

A lot of the so called issues with Silverlight are fabricated. Plain and simple

Much like your issues with HTML5, then.

Edited 2010-06-04 18:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Still unclear
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still unclear"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Lack of progress? LOL.


Yes, a lack of progress. Html5 is simply an incoherent method of describing any kind of user interface. You try to shoehorn a bunch of incompatible standards and you spend more time getting them to play nice than actually getting the job done (databinding vs dom tree traversal and css selectors)


No, what's holding back progress is stuff like Flash and Silverlight. These are extremely restrictive. Have you seen what it's finally possible to do with native video support in browsers? Flash and Silverlight could only dream of that.


Let's play a game, you get specific on what native video support can do in the browser..and I'll do it in less lines of code, at a higher framerate with Silverlight.

I can treat a video as a bitmap surface, with manipulation speed as fast as the Gpu can render a quad, and apply pixel shaders to the said video on the fly.

Please. From someone who's been using Silverlight since it was called Wpf/E, I honestly want you to try me.


The most popular video site on the web is moving to HTML5.


How old is YouTube? Technology moves incredibly fast. What is the king today will not be the king tomorrow necessarily. Also, you can kiss goodbye any chances YouTube had of getting live streaming or video rentals if you go with Html5.


So, you clearly haven't seen the latest browser demos.


I've seen them, and I've been able to do that level of interaction since Silverlight 1/2 .. at a higher framerate.


Silverlight is a dead end.


Yeah, I guess you can say that. If you want to be completely closed minded. Sure.


Much like your issues with HTML5, then.


Nah.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still unclear"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

But Silverlight only works on Windows and Intel Macs. Linux doesn’t count because that’s not actual, official Silverlight and might not work with certain features or certain distros at the behest of Microsoft. Where is that Moonlight VC-1 binary blob for ARM?

One day you will sit in front of your computer and realise that Silverlight has been a complete dead-end waste of time that has tied you to an awful company that is completely behind the times and unable to innovate in the web space and you will be forced to accept that HTML has won because it doesn’t need to be installed, it doesn’t wait for Microsoft and it works on all devices on all platforms on all architectures and it is the _only_ way to get content to everybody because there will never be plugin monopoly in the mobile space with the diversity of hardware and operating systems that are appearing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Still unclear
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jun 2010 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still unclear"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

But Silverlight only works on Windows and Intel Macs. Linux doesn’t count because that’s not actual, official Silverlight and might not work with certain features or certain distros at the behest of Microsoft. Where is that Moonlight VC-1 binary blob for ARM?


And Symbian, and Windows Phone. The Moonlight plugin is remarkably advanced, and with a little elbow grease, I can and have gotten my RIAs to render just fine.

It's usually a case of hopping on a mailing list or on irc and talking to the moonlight hackers, so it does take a little work, but I don't think it's stated enough how close they are to feature parity with eachother.


One day you will sit in front of your computer and realise that Silverlight has been a complete dead-end waste of time that has tied you to an awful company that is completely behind the times and unable to innovate in the web space and you will be forced to accept that HTML has won because it doesn’t need to be installed, it doesn’t wait for Microsoft and it works on all devices on all platforms on all architectures and it is the _only_ way to get content to everybody because there will never be plugin monopoly in the mobile space with the diversity of hardware and operating systems that are appearing.


I realize the plugin situation is not ideal, which is why I'd push for deeper integration of Silverlight beyond the constraints of the plugin frameworks for the various browsers.

Silverlight is more than a browser technology, and as it, and WPF converge, it will emerge as the true cross platform programming solution.

I'd like to see it have first citizen support in browsers along side HTML, and eventually replace HTML, CSS, Javascript, and SVG.

It always took someone breaking compatiblity and pioneering for any real change to come about on the web. As the web and the client side of apps become more blured, Silverlight will come more into focus.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Still unclear
by siimo on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still unclear"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

You want Silverlight to replace HTML? Can I have some of what you are smoking?

Silverlight isn't open, its Microsoft's, and right now they are helping Novel with Moonlight, does not mean they wont sue in the future.

This will be HTML5 video all over again...

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Still unclear
by Moochman on Sat 5th Jun 2010 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still unclear"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Silverlight is more than a browser technology, and as it, and WPF converge, it will emerge as the true cross platform programming solution.


Silverlight doesn't offer anything that Flash doesn't. In fact Flash has arguably better support for native apps than Silverlight, since with AIR you can with zero effort create cross-platform binaries for Windows, Mac and Linux. You might argue that for certain use cases Microsoft's programming tools are more capable, but Adobe also has the edge when it comes to design tools, so I'd call it a draw.

Flash however is available on far more platforms than Silverlight and and is more open than Silverlight--open spec and to some extent (Flex) open source. Yet look how much heat it is getting, with Adobe already planning for a long-term transition plan to HTML5.

Will Silverlight support on the web grow before it dies out? Maybe. But as a web technology, it will eventually die out, of that you can be sure.

(barring a miraculous change of heart by Microsoft to standardize and open-source it... ;) )

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Still unclear
by emerson999 on Sat 5th Jun 2010 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still unclear"
emerson999 Member since:
2007-12-08

Different people, different experiences, and all that. But from my use, I've never actually seen moonlight work on anything I tried that wasn't specifically designed for it. Every time I've seen something done for silverlight, it hasn't worked in moonlight. It's great that if someone puts some extra work into their code, they might be able to make it cross platform. But the reality is that when it comes to silverlight nobody does.

And they shouldn't have to. If something's cross platform, it should work across all platforms without essentially needing a half port.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Still unclear
by chris_l on Sat 5th Jun 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still unclear"
chris_l Member since:
2010-02-14

How old is YouTube? Technology moves incredibly fast. What is the king today will not be the king tomorrow necessarily. Also, you can kiss goodbye any chances YouTube had of getting live streaming or video rentals if you go with Html5.


Who cares? I'ld rather go out and buy a dvd rather than put up with *THAT* bullshit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Still unclear
by Neolander on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still unclear"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"I think the browser vendors could be more productive in getting HTML5 interactive demos running above a few frames a second before trashing RIA platforms like Silverlight and AIR (Yes, even AIR, and AIR sucks.)

So, you clearly haven't seen the latest browser demos.
"
Myself, I have seen the "latest browser demos", in the form of HTML5 video on Kroc's website. Looking at it, it *does* run at 3-4 fps at best. Probably less. Don't know, when scrolling doesn't work smoothly in my browser anymore, I start to go berserk...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Still unclear
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still unclear"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, and I'm still shocked how people can say it's "good enough"? As if web users should be forced to deal with mediocrity for the sake of having politically motivated developers feel principled.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still unclear"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Because the alternative—a closed web—is better? There’s nothing politically minded about using the format that can reach the most number of devices, doesn’t rely upon any proprietary tools and doesn't rely on the future of some company’s stock price. It’s common sense!

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Still unclear
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still unclear"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Because the alternative—a closed web—is better? There’s nothing politically minded about using the format that can reach the most number of devices, doesn’t rely upon any proprietary tools and doesn't rely on the future of some company’s stock price. It’s common sense!


No, open is not inherently better. For all those points you bring up, I match them up against the one's I've brought up.

The issues are so drastic that I can see them play out, frame by frame, on my browser canvas.

What do you tell a content provider? Deal with 3FPS unprotected streaming video because it's open?

Browser vendors should get their act together and fix the abysmal situation (and in fairness they're starting to) they're in, and then focus on criticizing even Flash.

They're expecting the fanfare without having really done anything.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Still unclear
by Vargol on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still unclear"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

Looking at it, it *does* run at 3-4 fps at best. Probably less. Don't know, when scrolling doesn't work smoothly in my browser anymore, I start to go berserk...


You've got serious problems with your computer even my ancient iMac
(32 bit 2GZ Core Duo, ATI RadeonX1600) plays it full speed at 20% CPU. Playing the same video on flash on Vimeo averages around 87% and at one point got up to 115%.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Still unclear
by Neolander on Sat 5th Jun 2010 06:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still unclear"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You've got serious problems with your computer even my ancient iMac
(32 bit 2GZ Core Duo, ATI RadeonX1600) plays it full speed at 20% CPU. Playing the same video on flash on Vimeo averages around 87% and at one point got up to 115%.

Wow ! Now C2D technology is "ancient" ??? How fast computer science is as forgetting things...

Vimeo HD runs slightly smoother, but is still unusable. I always use standard quality when I go to this site, it's already more than good enough for a web video and it runs close to smoothly (still significantly worse than YouTube, and on par with DailyMotion HQ. I suppose it's the price you pay for the additional quality).

My computer has got only a little older config than yours, if I remember hardware history well (Athlon 64 3000+ (overclocked), 1GB ram, Geforce 7800 GT). The difference is that it runs linux, so according to the HTML5 enthusiasts it should immensely benefit from HTML5 video. However, the feature seems not to work as advertised.

I agree that once I get my core i5 laptop, I probably won't get any performance problem anymore, be it with HTML 5 or Flash. But I think about all those people who access the web from a netbook with an Atom processor, 512 MB ram, a crappy hard drive, and an intel GMA chipset... We can't just assume that because hardware is more powerful, it gives us the right to write unoptimized software ! Because as time passes, high-end computers get more powerful, but low-end computers get less powerful too...

Edited 2010-06-05 06:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Still unclear
by Vargol on Sat 5th Jun 2010 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still unclear"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

Not Core 2 Duo just a 32 bit Core Duo thats over 4 years old. In tech terms that is ancient.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Still unclear
by pooo on Fri 4th Jun 2010 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

Freedom, platform independence, and open standards are big deal to a large segment of *developers*. Most end users don't know the difference but there is a powerful movement within the web development community that doesn't care about your precious frame rates. Chrome, IE9, Firefox are all fast *enough* and featureful *enough*.

You seem to think this debate is entirely about the abstract technical merits of each option but it is not! There are bigger issues and the technical merits of Silverlight vs HTML5. You may be right that Silverlight is better in many ways but HTML5 on the new breed of faster browsers is *good enough* and the additional benefits of Silverlight are not meaningful.

So you may argue based on technical merits that Silverlight won't die but know that *most* developers want it to die badly, and want HTML5 to succeed badly, and very large powerful corporations want the same. So, even though you could render overlays on video at 2x the frame rate (good for you), Silverlight might still lose this war.

I'm really sorry you invested so much of your time into something that everyone hates and is on questionably ethical grounds. Maybe you should just embrace HTML5 yourself and see that it isn't so bad, and you can actually feel good about it instead of having to go around ripping people and avoiding the real issues of the debate.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Still unclear
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jun 2010 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still unclear"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Freedom, platform independence, and open standards are big deal to a large segment of *developers*. Most end users don't know the difference but there is a powerful movement within the web development community that doesn't care about your precious frame rates. Chrome, IE9, Firefox are all fast *enough* and featureful *enough*.


I don't know who modded you down, as I appreciate insightful posts like yours.

However I don't think framerates in the single digits are "fast enough". Maybe in the future they will get better, and IE9 shows that they can, but in the immediate and short term.. they're not, and customers still demand RIA and LOB apps regardless.


You seem to think this debate is entirely about the abstract technical merits of each option but it is not! There are bigger issues and the technical merits of Silverlight vs HTML5. You may be right that Silverlight is better in many ways but HTML5 on the new breed of faster browsers is *good enough* and the additional benefits of Silverlight are not meaningful.


I understand that, however I do try to viciously fight back the lumping of Silverlight into the same technical wastebasket that Flash is dumped into.

Your point is well taken though, there are various political forces at play which obviously prevent Silverlight from having as much fanfare as it deserves.

Really, broken down, Silverlight is a mash of very web-esque technologies. Declarative language with built in vector graphic support, databinding, hardware accelerated rendering, and a Jit engine.


So you may argue based on technical merits that Silverlight won't die but know that *most* developers want it to die badly, and want HTML5 to succeed badly, and very large powerful corporations want the same.


Well that's doubtable, the "most developers" part at least. Silverlight has an army of trained .NET developers in the workforce just itching to make a paycheck off of it (like myself).

Half of their problem is perception, the end user really doesn't care much about a 5mb, 90 second install plugin which they do once.

Symbian and WinPh7 have already proved it's possible to bring performant Silverlight to mobile devices. So as the technology tug of war shifts in the post-pc emerging chess board, we'll see Silverlight become more instrumental.


So, even though you could render overlays on video at 2x the frame rate (good for you), Silverlight might still lose this war.


Sure, I acknowledge that. I'm not complacent, I just wouldn't count SL out yet.


I'm really sorry you invested so much of your time into something that everyone hates and is on questionably ethical grounds. Maybe you should just embrace HTML5 yourself and see that it isn't so bad, and you can actually feel good about it instead of having to go around ripping people and avoiding the real issues of the debate.


I'm not sorry, I enjoy developing in Silverlight, and make decent money off of it. I also have embraced HTML5, and because I have, I am able to see its weakspots.

I can point out a lot of SL weakpoints too, probably moreso than HTML5 because I've been frustrated by SL more often =P.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Still unclear
by nt_jerkface on Fri 4th Jun 2010 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still unclear"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

So you may argue based on technical merits that Silverlight won't die but know that *most* developers want it to die badly,


Oh did you take a poll?


and want HTML5 to succeed badly, and very large powerful corporations want the same.


A few powerful corps such as Google and Apple who don't like Silverlight because it doesn't fit in with their business plans.


I'm really sorry you invested so much of your time into something that everyone hates and is on questionably ethical grounds.


Silverlight doesn't have a problem with being hated, it has a problem with adoption due to the popularity of Flash. A lot of content producers would switch to Silverlight but Flash is "good enough tech" that has an incredibly high install rate that makes up for its technical deficiencies. Silverlight and HTML5 face the same problem which is that Flash is well entrenched and gets the job done, even if it isn't the most efficient solution.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Still unclear
by Neolander on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

About silverlight performance, I installed moonlight v2 on my linux box some months ago out of curiosity.

Then I went to www.silverlight.net as a test. The embedded animation made my browser totally sluggish and ran at about 5 fps.
Now if I run some heavy flash app like GrooveShark or start heavy tabbed browsing on YouTube, I NEVER encounter such a bad performance. Only ~12 fps and some short browser lags here and there. And those flash apps do way more interesting (and probably way more power-savvy) things than showcasing Flash features.

Maybe moonlight has improved in v3. But as of v2, it was not a reasonable Flash replacement, at least on linux (and almost everybody here knows how terrible Flash performance already is on Linux)

Edited 2010-06-04 20:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Still unclear
by nt_jerkface on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Tell me, why did Google go through all the trouble of compiling Java code into an insane mess of HTML and JavaScript—full of hacks for faulty browsers—instead of just serving users a Java app? Or Flash? Or Adobe AIR? Or Silverlight? All those technologies are far more capable than HTML!


They also have billions in the bank so funding a massive AJAX project without regard for productivity is not a problem for them.

But small and medium developers with experience in Adobe technologies and .net are not going jump on the javascript bandwagon unless forced.

Flash has a 97% install base, good luck explaining to Flash developers as to why they should abandon their experience for a smaller user base.


It doesn’t matter how much better any of those technologies are, they are not the web.


You don't have the authority to define what the web is.


They do not evolve in the same way and they have all failed in solving _basic_ accessibility and the right for the user to decide how they want to view their page according to their requirements.


That is a right you have declared in your head, not one that actually exists as part of some internet charter.

If you don't like the services being offered through Flash or any other proprietary technology then don't use it. Flash provides a technology medium that both producers and users find value in. Online games especially make use of Flash and if you have such a problem with it then start coding those Javascript alternatives. Have fun with that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

But small and medium developers with experience in Adobe technologies and .net are not going jump on the javascript bandwagon unless forced.


Force is being applied. The news has been filled from even before Apple launched the iPad. The writing has been on the wall.

You don't have the authority to define what the web is.


Yes I do! Because it’s an open platform that I can and do contribute to. I can contribute to the source code of various web browsers, I can participate in the HTML5 process and have mailed Hixie on occasions. I help test HTML5 features on my site and I teach others how to use it. I define the web because I use it. That applies to us all. The web is all of us, not only Adobe, or only Microsoft, or only Apple.

That is a right you have declared in your head, not one that actually exists as part of some internet charter.


Equality and freedom from discrimination is a human right and accessibility for disabled persons on the web is legally protected in the UK.

If you don't like the services being offered through Flash or any other proprietary technology then don't use it.


I don’t.

Online games especially make use of Flash and if you have such a problem with it then start coding those Javascript alternatives. Have fun with that.


I have. I didn’t have time to finish these projects off, but none the less, they exist and I made them way before people thought it was possible. http://code.google.com/p/jaxgames/

Also see http://lordofultima.com for what’s possible with money and professional developers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Still unclear
by nt_jerkface on Sat 5th Jun 2010 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still unclear"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Force is being applied. The news has been filled from even before Apple launched the iPad. The writing has been on the wall.


Still going with the HTML5 revolution, eh? Let me know when Hulu switches. Speaking of Hulu you should give their new Flash player a try, it's really nice.


Yes I do! Because it’s an open platform that I can and do contribute to. I can contribute to the source code of various web browsers,


That doesn't give you the right to define what the web is. You don't have control over how two parties exchange information on the internet.


Equality and freedom from discrimination is a human right and accessibility for disabled persons on the web is legally protected in the UK.

Well you should be fine with Silverlight then:
http://www.slideshare.net/goodfriday/building-accessible-rias-in-mi...


Also see http://lordofultima.com for what’s possible with money and professional developers.

What's possible and what is cost effective are two different things. Lord of Ultima is interesting tech but it is a turn based strategy game without animations. Using HTML5 to build something like Club Penguin would take far more work than with Flash.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Still unclear
by 2wicky on Sun 6th Jun 2010 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still unclear"
2wicky Member since:
2010-06-06

Force is being applied. The news has been filled from even before Apple launched the iPad. The writing has been on the wall.


Flash has seen a lot of these writings on the wall before. Why is this any different? A little history lesson:

In the early days, shockwave was the online multimedia tool of the web. When Flash came a long, it did only a fraction of what shockwave could do, but it took off anyway surpassing shockwave quickly. Macromedia was lucky they had both technologies in house, because all their efforts to treat flash as a second class citizen while trying to salvage shockwave failed. Why? Probably because Flash did the impossible: animated vectors at reasonable speeds.

Then there was the "Flash 99% bad" article that spread through the web community like a wild fire. A lot of people than where pretty sure that it would mark the end of Flash. That was more than a decade ago. It did however inspire others like Zeldman to fight for better web standards and accessibility. Until that point, the HTML development community was a mess too until it slowly started to clean up its own act.

Next: The HTML world was in desperate need of a vector format that was open and easy to use. SVG was developed and fit the bill. Unfortunately, Adobe saw SVG as a chance to dethrone Flash. They failed and the result is that SVG adoption was stalled for over a decade. A real shame because had they not envisioned it as a replacement for Flash, we would be doing a lot more cool things with SVG today. It's only now starting to flourish in the wild.
Adobe in the mean time learned, like others have (ex Xara and their .web format) that you can't just take a vector format like SVG (which is optimized to give the best fidelity for static images) and simply animate it. It's pretty CPU intensive and not something easily fixed with hardware acceleration.

So Adobe probably reasoned, if you can't beat them, buy em. And so they bought Macromedia to get their hands on Flash.

Than Microsoft came a long with Silverlight, though they seem to be smart enough not to take Flash head on. Silverlight's main reason to exist is to aid development on the .net platform. Being able to also enter Flash territory is an added plus, but not a necessity. As such, nobody is worried about Microsoft's long term commitment towards Silverlight even if it never ever replaces Flash.
And that's the stance HTML5 should have taken and was taking. Until Apple got involved.

And that is the whole problem with HTML5 vs Flash situation today. Just like with SVG, long term, it will do HTML5 more damage than it will to Flash.
By over hyping HTML5 as a Flash replacement, expectations are being created to which it is not ready to live up to. You run a real big risk that developers and customers jumping in too early will burn their fingers on this, turning their backs on it entirely and stagnating adoption and progress by years.

The last time we saw this much hubris in the HTML world, was the main reason why Flash grew from a simple animation tool to a fully fledged development platform. It saved people a lot of time and money because they didn't have to deal with browser incompatibilities.

If companies like Apple want to bill HTML5 as a Flash replacement, they can't afford to make this same mistake again. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself.

Looking to the future...

For Adobe, it's quite simple. Get Flash on as many mobile devices as possible and than educate the development community on how to keep the resource footprint of their flash apps as small as possible. Flash developers won't be able to ignore this anymore when confronted with the limited resources of mobile devices and will benefit the rest of the web. Flash community needs something like what the aListApart did for HTML standards and accessibility.

For the HTML5 community, it's a lot harder and they should be exercising patience rather than hyping it up. In the meantime, browser vendors will actually need to work together which is not easy as they are competing against each other. But they can't turn it into a feature war and encourage messages like "You need to download this browser to view this page". They need to encourage good behavior by degrading gracefully. If not, developers and users will eventually converge to a single browser vendor out of convenience. And progress will stagnate again. It's how we got stuck with IE6 mess today.

At this point, it's hard to tell if Apple really is sincere about progressing HTML5, or that they are doing everything in their power to sabotage it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Still unclear
by Neolander on Sun 6th Jun 2010 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still unclear"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Very good post, which is at the same time on topic, fair, and of great value. I hope that more people are going to read it, though as this topic starts to get old, this gets more and more uncertain...

Edited 2010-06-06 19:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Still unclear
by aliquis on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:14 UTC in reply to "Still unclear"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

I don't need or want the advanced content with lots of anims, waiting, and shit anyway.

So not an issue really ..

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Still unclear
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't need or want the advanced content with lots of anims, waiting, and shit anyway.

So not an issue really ..


Well, this is a case of people talking out of both sides of their mouth. I'm not necessarily saying you, but people will applaud what Html5, Css3, Svg, Canvas, et all do in these kind of showcases.. then as soon as someone points it out how much more efficient Silverlight is and has been at doing the same thing, they dismiss it as unnecessary.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

NT. Could be better said elsewhere.

Edited 2010-06-04 19:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still unclear
by maxwell on Fri 4th Jun 2010 23:06 UTC in reply to "Still unclear"
maxwell Member since:
2009-03-23

From my experience, Midori and the latest beta of the Opera browser are pretty fast!

Reply Score: 1

Overblown
by earksiinni on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:34 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

Apple is using trickery to block out browsers other than Safari


Here's a direct quote from Apple's showcase page about their intentions:

The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.


I'm no Apple apologist or fanboy, but I think calling browser sniffing "trickery" is going too far considering that they're being pretty transparent about the page's raison d'etre, which is explicitly to "show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser...[supports] the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript." Heck, they even gave a half-shout out to the other side when they wrote "Not all browsers offer this support", implying that there are some browsers that do (yes, Apple's glaring bias against eLinks, which has had JavaScript support for some time now, also makes me steaming mad!!)

What really makes me feel like the "trickery" comment is unjustified, however, is that when you click on the demo links it says very clearly that they need you to use Safari. That's miles ahead of other websites that block unsupported yet capable browsers without any kind of explanation at all. They're upfront about their chicanery =).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Overblown
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:45 UTC in reply to "Overblown"
yoshi314@gmail.com Member since:
2009-12-14

"What really makes me feel like the "trickery" comment is unjustified, however, is that when you click on the demo links it says very clearly that they need you to use Safari. That's miles ahead of other websites that block unsupported yet capable browsers without any kind of explanation at all. They're upfront about their chicanery =). "

the lie is that you don't really need safari to properly render that page. i bet most webkit based browsers would display it the right way. it makes an impression as if safari is the only browser that can do it. and obviously, linux is not included ;)

and by doing it this way you cannot compare the rendering to alternate browsers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Overblown
by earksiinni on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Overblown"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

the lie is that you don't really need safari to properly render that page. i bet most webkit based browsers would display it the right way.


Agreed. I'm not saying that Apple is a white sheep, I'm just saying that they're not really trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Now, if that occurs as a side effect, I don't think they'll object =).

it makes an impression as if safari is the only browser that can do it.


I'm not so sure about this. Anyone who is tech savvy enough to realize what Apple has done will also be knowledgeable enough to know that Chrome/other WebKit browsers can do the same thing. For that matter, if you're that tech savvy, you probably think that this page is meant to be an HTML5 showcase for the purpose of showcasing the HTML5 web standard, because HTML5 is what you care about. On the other hand, Apple is very clear about this page's purpose: it is an HTML5 showcase meant to showcase Safari's support for HTML5. That's probably what the "average" user comes away with, since that's what's written.

In other words, I'm questioning the premise of Haavard's post and this blog's coverage. I don't think this was meant to be an HTML5 demo at all; it is explicitly a Safari demo. Apple's loud branding of HTML5 all over the page doesn't strike me as them saying "Come check out this cool new open web standard!" Rather, it screams, "We support HTML5, and look at how realistic an option replacing Flash with HTML5 is when you use Apple technology!"

DISCLAIMER: I don't own a single piece of Apple hardware or software other than my old Mac SE running System 6.

Edit: mangled quotation block

Edited 2010-06-04 17:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Overblown
by Moochman on Sat 5th Jun 2010 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Overblown"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

the lie is that you don't really need safari to properly render that page. i bet most webkit based browsers would display it the right way.


Exactly. And not even just WebKit browsers--there's a decent chance Firefox would do just fine as well. Google also has this kind of site--they call it "Chrome Experiments"

http://www.chromeexperiments.com/

...and most of them run just fine in Firefox. Plus they allow anyone to submit stuff themselves.

Just goes to show the difference in approach between Google and Apple. I know which one I prefer.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Overblown
by PresentIt on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:13 UTC in reply to "Overblown"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Here's a direct quote from Apple's showcase page about their intentions:


They are implying that you need Safari if you want HTML5 capabilities in your browser. And they aren't even testing any HTML5 (well, a couple of things).

Heck, they even gave a half-shout out to the other side when they wrote "Not all browsers offer this support", implying that there are some browsers that do

No, they are implying that only Safari does, therefore use Safari, and Apple rocks!

when you click on the demo links it says very clearly that they need you to use Safari

...implying that you need Safari to view HTML5 content.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Overblown
by earksiinni on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Overblown"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

I'm not sure where you're getting your evidence from. How does saying "The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript" in any way imply that Safari is the only browser that supports HTML5? That's a false inference.

Same for "Not all browsers offer this support". They aren't saying "Only Safari offers this support" or "No other browsers offer this support". I think they're being clear: HTML5 is an emerging standard, and Safari is one of the browsers that supports it.

Furthermore, how can people say that Apple's showcase page doesn't test HTML5 at all? A gross exaggeration. I only have a Linux machine, so I can't test the page myself, but I was under the impression that it does use HTML5 tags?

Really, the more I think about it, the more I feel that this blog post is more about anti-Apple FUD (YES, I said it! May the flame wars begin!) than actually reading what was written on the page. I can't stand Apple's controlling mentality any more than the next techie, but the editorial spin that's been placed on this "news item" (if it can be called that) is simply off.

EDIT: From the other comments, I see now that Apple has used WebKit-specific tags. Epic fail. But that still doesn't take away from my main point, which is that this showcase page is not about HTML5 but about Safari, nor for that matter does using WebKit-specific tags mean that the page doesn't test HTML5 rendering capability (for Safari).

Edited 2010-06-04 17:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Overblown
by PresentIt on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Overblown"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

You are ignoring the fact that it's called "HTML5 Showcase", on the page "apple.com/html5" even though it doesn't really use much HTML5 at all.

The total impression you get is what I described. You are ignoring the overall picture.

Anti-Apple FUD? More like anti-lying facts. More like anti-Apple-lying-about-HTML5 facts.

This page is indeed about HTML5. That is the impression they want to leave you with. And it doesn't even test HTML5!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Overblown
by l3v1 on Fri 4th Jun 2010 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Overblown"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

And you say you're not a fanboy?

You're just too easily dragged into the pr-machine, which is fine, you belong to their target audience, they reached you, so tada, they're good.

But let's just put aside how and what html5 capabilities they use in those demos (which don't seem much, but anyway). Instead take this: "[Macs and do.] all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript [,..] But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards"

First, since they don't say how much of html5, css3 and js they support, they suggest they support everything. The insertion of the "all" word in that sentence on the left side of "support" is a nice move btw (keeping "all", "support" and "capabilities" close enough to work their magic). Second, they say other browsers "will" have support, suggesting they currecntly don't have that support. All in all, I don't have anything against them doing some pr, but I don't enjoy seeing people falling for it - even if they seem to have knowledgeable pr guys around.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Overblown
by NeoX on Sat 5th Jun 2010 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Overblown"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


EDIT: From the other comments, I see now that Apple has used WebKit-specific tags. Epic fail. But that still doesn't take away from my main point, which is that this showcase page is not about HTML5 but about Safari, nor for that matter does using WebKit-specific tags mean that the page doesn't test HTML5 rendering capability (for Safari).


I agree with your initial assessments, both the part about Apple not intentionally lying and that this post is Anti-Apple FUD.

As to the fact that they use webkit tags mixed in with HTML5 I don't see the big deal. After all this is a showcase of HTML5 AND Safari, that is pretty clear from the showcase page.

All this Apple lying talk and Opera's whining just sounds like sour grapes from a bunch of Anti-Apple types.

I am no Apple fanboy but this is ridiculous.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Overblown
by mrhasbean on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:55 UTC in reply to "Overblown"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

I'm no Apple apologist or fanboy, but I think calling browser sniffing "trickery" is going too far considering that they're being pretty transparent about the page's raison d'etre, which is explicitly to "show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser...[supports] the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript." Heck, they even gave a half-shout out to the other side when they wrote "Not all browsers offer this support", implying that there are some browsers that do (yes, Apple's glaring bias against eLinks, which has had JavaScript support for some time now, also makes me steaming mad!!)

What really makes me feel like the "trickery" comment is unjustified, however, is that when you click on the demo links it says very clearly that they need you to use Safari. That's miles ahead of other websites that block unsupported yet capable browsers without any kind of explanation at all. They're upfront about their chicanery =).


But this is ALWAYS the case, as I commented the other day. And again I will be called a fanboy for pointing this out, but it's a fact, Apple ALWAYS disclose their supposed underhanded or draconic practices UP FRONT, unlike the likes of Google who never disclose them AT ALL. Apple spent their time, resources, money to set up a demo for THEIR browser and they get labelled yet again by imbeciles who think anything Apple do should be "for the good of humanity". News Flash! THEY ARE A BUSINESS!!! They have every right to promote THEIR products. Build a fracking bridge and get over it people, ffs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Overblown
by NeoX on Sat 5th Jun 2010 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Overblown"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Thank You, and well said. It does get really old reading all the Anti-Apple FUD here. I still do not see the big deal of what Apple did with this showcase page. They do use HTML5, just look at the source. It is for Apple's browsers, read the description.

What the editor thinks Apple "did" certainly doesn't warrant the headline of this article, nor the article itself with all the judgmental conclusions.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Overblown
by NathanHill on Fri 4th Jun 2010 23:02 UTC in reply to "Overblown"
NathanHill Member since:
2006-10-06

I agree with you.

For one thing, the demos on the site are pretty darn cool. This should be an exciting thing for anyone on the fence about HTML5. Sure, the examples are Webkit/Safari oriented, but with such an emphasis shifting to Webkit browsers and the iPhone market, they give great examples of cool applications and features you could use on your website to target those audiences.

Everybody involved and supportive of HTML5 needs to do this, to show their base just what HTML5 means for the future and present of the web. Especially Firefox.

Despite the idea that HTML5 is going to be some universal standard, different browsers are going to seek different strategies in the implementation and rendering of HTML5.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Overblown
by Neolander on Sat 5th Jun 2010 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Overblown"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Despite the idea that HTML5 is going to be some universal standard, different browsers are going to seek different strategies in the implementation and rendering of HTML5.

*shocked*

Do you realize that what you're predicting here is the come-back of the Netscape vs IE era ? *shivers*

Reply Score: 2

RE: Overblown
by Lorin on Sat 5th Jun 2010 00:12 UTC in reply to "Overblown"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

Still no valid reason to go through the trouble of blocking every other browser, just plain bad sportsmanship.

Reply Score: 2

Surely this was obvious?
by alcibiades on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:57 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

Apple is seeking to maintain iron control over what apps you run on your iDevices. As web sites become applications, and as applications become content, they have to restrict content, which means restricting the browser you can use, and what you must use to access their sites. The next step will be restricting where the browser can go.

Yes, its mad, but its how Cupertino is.

Reply Score: 4

It's simple...
by tomcat on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:03 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Apple doesn't want you to be able to directly compare their HTML5 implementation on samples that they provide with other browsers. That gives them the ability to implement "reality distortion" about what HTML5 "is". Frankly, very sleazy. But did you expect anything different from Cupertino? It's not about the open Web or you or freedom or whatever. It's about Apple controlling every possible toll booth on the Internet.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by tessmonsta
by tessmonsta on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:10 UTC
tessmonsta
Member since:
2009-07-16

Has anyone tried using a user-agent hack to work around the block? I'm curious to see just how compliant the page is with a non-Apple browser.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by tessmonsta
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by tessmonsta"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

They don’t use cross-browser CSS3 declarations, only the webkit specific ones. It’s not that this stuff couldn’t work on other browsers, it’s that Apple have coded only for webkit. Opera and Firefox support CSS transforms and transisitions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by tessmonsta
by tessmonsta on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by tessmonsta"
tessmonsta Member since:
2009-07-16

In that case it would probably work on Chrome. Still, ugh, so much fail...

Reply Score: 2

Works with User Agent Switcher
by aksheyjawa on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:16 UTC
aksheyjawa
Member since:
2010-06-04

It works flawlessly with Chrome's user agent switcher addon

Reply Score: 2

tessmonsta Member since:
2009-07-16

Given that, the only thing Apple seems to be showcasing is their walled-garden mentality. Does anyone know what the browser marketshare looks like among macs? I ask because it makes me wonder just how many of Apple's own users they are alienating here...

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think Safari holds like 70-80% there, but this figure has been pulled out of my ass, so don't hold me to it.

Reply Score: 1

tessmonsta Member since:
2009-07-16

I wouldn't be surprised. Chrome has only recently become stable on Mac and I'm unsure about the Firefox experience over there.

Reply Score: 1

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I think Safari holds like 70-80% there, but this figure has been pulled out of my ass, so don't hold me to it.


Apparently your ass is not all that reliable. It turns out Firefox is pretty much neck and neck with Safari on the Mac.

http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/articles/firefox_usage_statistics...

Reply Score: 2

Why pull Microsoft into this?
by sukru on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:21 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

"After the H264 shenanigans, yet more proof that Microsoft and Apple really don't care about a truly open web at all"


The Apple page did not have anything to do with MS at all. And at least Microsoft listened to the backlash, and now supports WebM along with H264 in video tags.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:30 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Welcome to the new web, same as the old web

http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2010/06/04/check-out-these-html5-... ;)

Apple have a one-browser view of the web. Where have we seen that before?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by earksiinni on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Haha, that's a fantastic post...

Reply Score: 1

Windows Safari doesn't even work
by joshv on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:23 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

About 50% of the demos didn't work on the Windows version of Safari. Yes, I know most of that was because I don't have QuickTime installed, but tell me Apple, what part of HTML5 requires QuickTime to be installed?

Reply Score: 2

Bad move
by apoclypse on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:41 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

I have to agree that this is s bad move from Apple if they really wanted to sell HTML5. A lot of whats in webkit usually ends up in the spec so in a way they are right but Apple should have made it open to any browser especially webkit based browsers like Chrome. Now I hate Chrome myself, I wouldn't touch it, but I know that in terms of HTML5 compliance it is probably the best out there. This could have been a great opportunity for apple to show how HTML5 is better than the alternative. If they wanted to showcase Safari they could have shown that by having Safari run circles around the competition, not by blocking them. In other words put up or shutup.

Reply Score: 2

Counterproductive
by unoengborg on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:42 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

Developers go there to find that they need another web browser, then they deside that most people will not change browser to see HTML5, and continue to develop HTML4 code + flash.

To promote HTML5, apple should have shonw that it can run well in as many browsers as possible.

Reply Score: 3

hmmm
by poundsmack on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:49 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

sad that apple has been acting like Microsoft used too... (and i say used to because their lock in and trickery tactics aren't nearly as prevalent as they used to be).

I thought you were classier than this Apple. Well, not really, but most of your fan boys did.

on a separate note; I am just waiting for google.com to put up a count down on the home page that says something to the effect of "You have this many days to download Chrome which will allow you to continue to use google. Once the count down is complete all other browsers will redirect to Ask.com ...and nobody wants that."

...seriously, don't do that google.

Reply Score: 3

Apple censorship on Facebook?
by Rehdon on Fri 4th Jun 2010 19:00 UTC
Rehdon
Member since:
2005-07-06

I tried to share the original story on FB, but couldn't: the content was considered "offensive or illegal". I can only wonder why, perhaps Apple had words with the FB guys???

Rehdon

Reply Score: 2

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

html5test.com

Firefox 3.6 gets 101
Firefox 3.7 gets 104

Opera 10.5 gets 102
Opera 10.6 gets 102

Chrome 5 gets 142
Chrome 6 gets 142

Safari 4 gets 120
WebKit nightly gets 144

Reply Score: 3

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

html5test.com

Firefox 3.6 gets 101
Firefox 3.7 gets 104

Opera 10.5 gets 102
Opera 10.6 gets 102

Chrome 5 gets 142
Chrome 6 gets 142

Safari 4 gets 120
WebKit nightly gets 144


And come Monday Safari 5 will have WebKit Nightly status.

Hence, BS on standards support.

Reply Score: 2

Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

And come Monday Safari 5 will have WebKit Nightly status.


So you think they'll just grab the latest Webkit version from SVN tonight and build Safari 5 from it? Sir, please drop the Kool-Aid, put your hands on your head and move *slowly* away from the keyboard.

Reply Score: 2

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"And come Monday Safari 5 will have WebKit Nightly status.


So you think they'll just grab the latest Webkit version from SVN tonight and build Safari 5 from it? Sir, please drop the Kool-Aid, put your hands on your head and move *slowly* away from the keyboard.
"

Foot in mouth.

http://trac.webkit.org/browser/branches/safari-533-branch

Safari 533 adds WebKit2 updates and WebCore updates just 4 days prior.

Safari Version 5 [Build 5533.36)
So, yes. They have missed trunk by that much!

Reply Score: 2

Works in Epiphany and Chome
by oram.ryan on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:29 UTC
oram.ryan
Member since:
2010-06-04

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.2+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/531.2+ Debian/squeeze/sid () Epiphany/2.30.0

Apple failed to block Epiphany. Chrome works perfectly using the default Epiphany userscript. Firefox fails.

Why is Apple blocking other web browsers?

Reply Score: 1

Just a few notes...
by JPowers27 on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:30 UTC
JPowers27
Member since:
2008-07-30

1. Apple is showing off the features in Safari. The demos include a lot of webkit_ prefixed tags; thus, on any non-webkit browser the demo wont show up correctly.

2. Much of the CSS 3.x standard isn't finalized; because the current implementation of the feature may change to meet the final standard, the webkit team added the webkit_ prefix.

3. HTML 5 is also not fully standardized and is still in draft; likewise, the webkit team added webkit_ prefixed.

Based on the above information; the demos will remain Safari only until the standards get finalized and Apple can verify that the implementation provided meets the requirements. Once that happens, they can remove the webkit_ prefixes.

Please be aware that the standard is to add <browser>_ prefixes to non-standard attributes. The webkit team also places these tags before standard but non-finalized attributes.

Chrome is webkit based and may display the pages fine; however, Apple most likely didn't test with it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Just a few notes...
by oram.ryan on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:38 UTC in reply to "Just a few notes..."
oram.ryan Member since:
2010-06-04

If they want to show off a standard, it should work in every browser. Period.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Just a few notes...
by tyrione on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Just a few notes..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

If they want to show off a standard, it should work in every browser. Period.


They are demonstrating what HTML 5 presently is in Safari and if you download WebKit Nightly even more demos can be shown.

Google did the same damn thing with YouTube for a few weeks before they opened it up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Just a few notes...
by oram.ryan on Fri 4th Jun 2010 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just a few notes..."
oram.ryan Member since:
2010-06-04

Google is wrong as well.

I can't play H.264 Youtube videos on Epiphany as Google limits them to Chrome and Safari.

This is despite Epiphany using WebKit as well and fully supporting Theora and H.264.

User agent controls are horrible policies on today's web.

Edited 2010-06-05 00:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nexus won ;)
by Ikshaar on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:21 UTC
Ikshaar
Member since:
2005-07-14

I could not check the showcase with Chromium under Linux, but works fine on the browser of Android on my Nexus One ;)

I agree Apple can do whatever it wants on its webpages but the intent is a bit suspicious to block other browsers.

Reply Score: 1

Here we go again
by ronaldst on Fri 4th Jun 2010 21:40 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

"Apple is clearly trying to make it seem as if only Safari can display HTML5 content"

"After the H264 shenanigans, yet more proof that Microsoft and Apple really don't care about a truly open web at all..."

"it is our job to keep fighting for a truly open web"

If that were true, we wouldn't be reading mindless rant-icles on how stuff (like h264) is unfair.

BTW the web is patented from top to bottom. And steered by committees stuffed with corporate employees.

Reply Score: 1

Excellent satire
by nt_jerkface on Sat 5th Jun 2010 00:49 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

So well done, looks like a real Apple website.

Reply Score: 2

It seems to work now
by OSGuy on Sat 5th Jun 2010 02:12 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

I visited the site with FF and Chrome just about now and it let me through. May be all of this negative press affected them?

Reply Score: 2

RE: It seems to work now
by oram.ryan on Sat 5th Jun 2010 03:07 UTC in reply to "It seems to work now"
oram.ryan Member since:
2010-06-04

It still is blocking me on Chrome or Firefox with the default user agents.

Reply Score: 1

Check out apple developer pages...
by aMacMan on Sat 5th Jun 2010 04:01 UTC
aMacMan
Member since:
2010-06-05

Check out Apple's developer pages:

http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/

They all work with Chrome etc...

What a bunch of whiners.

Apple is just promoting there browser on their main site, as they should, but the demos work just fine from their developer section.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Check out Apple's developer pages:

http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/

They all work with Chrome etc...

What a bunch of whiners.

Apple is just promoting there browser on their main site, as they should, but the demos work just fine from their developer section.

You should clarify "etc". As some pointed out, some releases of Chrome identify themselves as Safari in their user agent string for compatibility reasons.

And on other platforms...
http://yfrog.com/jksafariqj

Edited 2010-06-05 06:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

and thus...
by nicolasgoddone on Sat 5th Jun 2010 15:00 UTC
nicolasgoddone
Member since:
2009-04-20

Apple starts showing its true colors, brace yourselves a shitstorm of heatred is just over the horizon

Reply Score: 0

RE: and thus...
by tyrione on Sun 6th Jun 2010 01:43 UTC in reply to "and thus..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Apple starts showing its true colors, brace yourselves a shitstorm of heatred is just over the horizon


That you are sheep?

Reply Score: 2

kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

OK so I am running it in concurrently Opera, Omniweb, Chrome and safari and no browser is taking up more than 16 threads. (OOps I just noticed 20 extra threads in chrome for the google chrome renderer and chrome worker). And I have a flash heavy page in opera. I suppose when I am done being completely offended by the utter lack of fact checking on this, I might sip a glass of wine and have some cheese. I do not care what y'all do with your whining. The Tech Crunch page says it works with other browsers. No I havent tested this on Windows. Maybe Tomorrow. Maybe I don't care about an OS I Do Not Use It is one thing to call Apple out for things that they have done wrong OR things that they didn't get right. Hell you can call them out on things that you think they boned or whatever but c'mon already - test it. That is methodology not a witch hunt. This isn't Microsoft Plus Office and "selling" OEM exclusive licenses.

I do not have a horse in this race. I should. And I like everyone else have an implicit stake in the open future of the web however much is responsible for a corporate entity. (REALSPEAK - If I can publish FOSS then I can - I do not have any right to tell another programmer to and companies may not be legally allowed to). This is not 15 months ago trying to get several unsupported formats working on my Mac. I have no need for Flash or Silverlight or WMV or any associated DRM. If I put this on the web and it generates links and gets cited by others in a sensible what would Thom & Co. most appreciate then that is how an open market works.

I am not a fanboy. I own Apple stock so I have a vested interest in how this thing pans out. But I would feel like a fanboy If I got all uppity without checking. And even more than that if I got all uppity when I do not even know if the implications of this story benefit me or harm me.

Reply Score: 1

AARD Code
by _QJ_ on Sun 6th Jun 2010 07:14 UTC
_QJ_
Member since:
2009-03-12

Does it remind you something ?

Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

The song remain the same.

Reply Score: 1

The real scandal are ..
by MysterMask on Sun 6th Jun 2010 08:29 UTC
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

.. sites like this:
sites like this:

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/


e. g. compare with result from
http://www.html5test.com/
or
http://www.caniuse.com/


I don't mind if Apple makes a demo page Safari only as long as they don't try to make others look worse than their own product ..

Reply Score: 2

RE: The real scandal are ..
by Neolander on Sun 6th Jun 2010 08:59 UTC in reply to "The real scandal are .."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

e. g. compare with result from
http://www.html5test.com/

From the title "The HTML5 test – how well does your browser support HTML5?"

Now let's look at some of the tests...
"H.264 codec support No"
"MP3 codec support No"
"AAC codec support No"

So now these are part of the HTML5 specification ? Strange, I don't find any of these on W3C's website...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The real scandal are ..
by Kroc on Sun 6th Jun 2010 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE: The real scandal are .."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I did complain about those to the author, http://rakaz.nl/2010/03/the-html5-test.html#comments and he gives an explanation of how the video codecs affect the score (it’s based on the number of codecs supported, not the mere presence of them)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The real scandal are ..
by Neolander on Sun 6th Jun 2010 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real scandal are .."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Okay, then you're right that this somehow reduce the importance of the issue.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The real scandal are ..
by Neolander on Sun 6th Jun 2010 09:03 UTC in reply to "The real scandal are .."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08


Most of IE9's support is "unknown". That's fine, however giving a final result where all "unknown" is assumed to be "false" is horribly wrong. I'm not an IE advocate at all, be it only because putting a web browser at the core of an OS is a horrible design mistake, but this issue makes this test looks as biaised as Microsoft's one, in my opinion...

Edited 2010-06-06 09:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The real scandal are ..
by Kroc on Sun 6th Jun 2010 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE: The real scandal are .."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

IE9 is still a year away. Until they ship it, it doesn’t exist and nor does support for this or that. It’s not like open source browsers where you can download trunk and see what’s in there.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The real scandal are ..
by Neolander on Sun 6th Jun 2010 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real scandal are .."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Then they should write "Unknown" as IE9's result. Displaying a percentage somehow implies that they already know what's inside, and what is especially funny is that under certain circumstances, IE9 gets a lower score than IE 8 ! ^^'

Edited 2010-06-06 10:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Apple's 360° demo done right
by leo_ on Sun 6th Jun 2010 12:34 UTC
leo_
Member since:
2007-09-04

Here is a simple HTML 4, cross-browser rewrite of Apple's 360° demo: http://www.warpdesign.fr/html4/showcase/threesixty/

This demo uses browser sniffing for what it was intented to: allow to use browser's enhanced features while degrading beautifully in other browsers. Not by blocking other browsers...

Seems like Apple didn't learn the Microsoft/Netscape lesson.

And yes, it works in Opera, but also IE,...

Reply Score: 1

Comment
by Finalzone on Mon 7th Jun 2010 00:29 UTC
Finalzone
Member since:
2005-07-06

I visited Apple demo website about HTML5 and noticed vendor specific tag such as -webkit* meaning non-standard method. As web designer, I refuse to use specific tag as log both browser makers (Safari, Opera, Mozilla and in lesser extent Microsoft) agree on common standard. Peace.

Reply Score: 2

Bla bla bla...
by GStepper on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:00 UTC
GStepper
Member since:
2006-03-08

It's funny to see that noboby read or understood the following statement that appears on every Apple HTML5 demo:
"The demos below show how Apple’s Safari web browser supports the capabilities of web standards such as HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript."

Plus, everydobdy knows the HTML5 specs are not finalised and the actual version of Safari still needs enhancements hence the -webkit* calls...

Evil Apple you're the worst thing blablabla...
:)

Reply Score: 2