Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Feb 2010 22:17 UTC
Internet & Networking There's a bit of ruckus going on at the moment in the world of HTML5. A number of people are claiming that Adobe has blocked the latest publication of the HTML5 standard. However, after diving into the actual mailing list threads, it becomes obvious quite quickly that it's nothing but a misunderstanding. Update: Masinter replies: "No part of HTML5 is, or was ever, 'blocked' in the W3C HTML Working Group - not HTML5, not Canvas 2D Graphics, not Microdata, not Video - not by me, not by Adobe."
Thread beginning with comment 409347
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Mon 15th Feb 2010 02:33 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

everybody likes to hate on flash these days and most of the hate seem to come from apple fanboys to justify apple not allowing it on their devices.

Flash is a scriptable runtime environment that also play audio and video streams. Apple did not prevent flash because of its appetite on resources, they prevented it because of its scriptable nature and apple's inability to control what code can run on flash if they allowed it. Apple's obsession with control is what is keeping flash off of its devices.

i am a linux user and i do not like flash very much and apple's interest in pushing the web off of flash is in agreement with mine and i should be thankful but i do not approve of their lying about their reasons and i think we should all call them out on it instead of repeating it simply because we agree with their end result

Reply Score: 10

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by tyrione on Mon 15th Feb 2010 03:15 in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

everybody likes to hate on flash these days and most of the hate seem to come from apple fanboys to justify apple not allowing it on their devices.

Flash is a scriptable runtime environment that also play audio and video streams. Apple did not prevent flash because of its appetite on resources, they prevented it because of its scriptable nature and apple's inability to control what code can run on flash if they allowed it. Apple's obsession with control is what is keeping flash off of its devices.

i am a linux user and i do not like flash very much and apple's interest in pushing the web off of flash is in agreement with mine and i should be thankful but i do not approve of their lying about their reasons and i think we should all call them out on it instead of repeating it simply because we agree with their end result


The hate comes from the Linux and OS X camps, with a growing horde of Windows camp sick of the scourge known as Flash; and welcome the day HTML 5 is supported in all WebKit, IE and Presto based browsers.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by wargum on Mon 15th Feb 2010 12:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Most of these flash haters seem to think that when flash disappears, the ads are gone, too. And that is just an insane assumption.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by fatjoe on Mon 15th Feb 2010 13:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

(dupe post)

Edited 2010-02-15 13:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by fatjoe on Mon 15th Feb 2010 13:06 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

The hate comes from the Linux and OS X camps, with a growing horde of Windows camp sick of the scourge known as Flash; and welcome the day HTML 5 is supported in all WebKit, IE and Presto based browsers.



Flash content can be annoying at times. And I would much rather see web-developers use open standards instead. But this technology works relativity well on Linux and Windows. It would work much better on OSX if Apple cooperated more with Adobe.

That being said, I feel that some opposition comes from the Apple camp who believe that since iPhone does not support Flash hence Flash must be bad.

Hence I have to ask you: as a former Apple employee and a well-known Apple advocate on this forum, is your opposition to Flash due to your love for open platforms or are you just drinking and selling the Jobs Kool-aid? Would you have reasoned differently if iPhone did support Flash and did it really well??

Edited 2010-02-15 13:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Evan on Mon 15th Feb 2010 04:20 in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Evan Member since:
2006-01-18

Flash has been a detestable framework for web development since its' inception.

It was slow, buggy, incompatible with almost any browser other than ie and netscape, costly to setup on a server, bandwidth intensive, obnoxiously used, and made sites inaccessible for the disabled.

What has changed in 10 years?

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by darknexus on Mon 15th Feb 2010 05:10 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Flash has been a detestable framework for web development since its' inception.

It was slow, buggy, incompatible with almost any browser other than ie and netscape, costly to setup on a server, bandwidth intensive, obnoxiously used, and made sites inaccessible for the disabled.

What has changed in 10 years?


Well, the scourge has reached more platforms now? Oh, and it can make today's CPUs grind to a halt when playing a simple video, so I suppose ten years have made it more of a resource hog than before. Other than that, can't think of anything.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by kaiwai on Mon 15th Feb 2010 05:33 in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

everybody likes to hate on flash these days and most of the hate seem to come from apple fanboys to justify apple not allowing it on their devices.

Flash is a scriptable runtime environment that also play audio and video streams. Apple did not prevent flash because of its appetite on resources, they prevented it because of its scriptable nature and apple's inability to control what code can run on flash if they allowed it. Apple's obsession with control is what is keeping flash off of its devices.

i am a linux user and i do not like flash very much and apple's interest in pushing the web off of flash is in agreement with mine and i should be thankful but i do not approve of their lying about their reasons and i think we should all call them out on it instead of repeating it simply because we agree with their end result


How about the fact that Flash sucks, the developers at Adobe suck, their management are locked in a reality distortion field, and long time Microsoft haters are having greater success with Silverlight than with Adobe's Flash. I truly am sick and tired of hearing the sycophants from forums and the crap employee's of Adobe bending over backwards apologising for the abortion of a technology that is Flash.

Oh, and to claim that some how because it is installed by many people it equates to a product 'not as bad as people make it out to be" - who the f--k chooses to use the technology in the first place! I've never ever seen a end user install a plugin for something unless the developer of the website itself pushed for its use! so please, to some how equate quality to distribution to people actively choosing to install Flash is a pathetic and fictitious argument to make.

We all know what the solution is - open source the damn plugin; there is no value derived from the plugin - you make the dollars off the development tools. Open source the plugin under a liberal licence and allow vendors to contribute and fix up the problems because so far Adobe has demonstrated gross incompetence when it comes to delivering a stable product. Oh, as for 'forked versions' as the Flash apologists in the past here have claimed - institute the same requirements that Java has, "you can't call it Java unless it has passed the conformity tests".

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Mon 15th Feb 2010 05:48 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14


We all know what the solution is - open source the damn plugin; there is no value derived from the plugin - you make the dollars off the development tools. Open source the plugin under a liberal licence and allow vendors to contribute and fix up the problems because so far Adobe has demonstrated gross incompetence when it comes to delivering a stable product.


people give this argument also give another one saying that it is only a matter of time before hulu ditch flash and use html5/video. Hulu will never do this because they want people to always stream their contents and will never go with a "naked" streaming solution that will allow people to record their streams. For this reason, adobe will most likely never open source their player because they want to keep all content providers who want to keep their contents locked up. Flash going open source today and hulu will go silverlight a few seconds later.

as long as content providers want their stuff locked up, there will always be proprietary technologies that will allow them to do that ..why not be happy with the devil u know than the devil you dont? moonlight has so far show no interest in implementing proprietary technologies netflix uses in streaming their contents in silverlight and to expect microsoft to support anything other than windows is expecting too much from them and that will surely lead to disappointments

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Kyuubu on Mon 15th Feb 2010 09:39 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Kyuubu Member since:
2007-09-07

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?408059

I knew this sounded too much familiar... Come on, this is not even on-topic.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Laurence on Mon 15th Feb 2010 11:27 in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

The hate comes from a variety of users from all platforms:

* FOSS and OS X users for being neglected with sub-standard ports

* Users who don't have powerful machines and find simple webpages can often max out their machine.

* Surfers who stumble across a whole site built in Flash and find they can use the most basic of functions (back buttons, copy/paste, open in new window/tab)

* People who like to browse the web on internet-ready non-PC / Mac equipment (portable devices, integrated devices like games consoles and TVs, etc).

* People who just get sick of intrusive ad banners (some even come bundled with sound effects).

And the problem is compounded by the fact that if and when you do stumble across a Flash heavy site (excluding ads), there's often no way to view the site without Flash - thus either forcing the user to run Flash or lose content.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by wargum on Mon 15th Feb 2010 12:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

* FOSS and OS X users for being neglected with sub-standard ports

Admitted, the quality of the Windows version is superior, but for 10.1, Adobe will improve at least the OS X version heavily. They promise to bring CPU decoded video on par with the Windows version. They can't use the graphics processor's decoder chips directly on OS X though, because Apple does not have an API for that, yet. This is clearly Apple's fault, we have to be fair here. Second, they announced that 10.1 will use Core Animation on the Mac, which will probably boost graphic calculations a lot.

* Users who don't have powerful machines and find simple webpages can often max out their machine.

No sympathy from my side, here. Look, if you buy an Atom based device and expect it to do everything that a "real" laptop/desktop can do, that is your fault. Adobe does improve H.264 based video decoding with Flash Player 10.1 though, by using specialised decoder chips available in some of these machines.

* Surfers who stumble across a whole site built in Flash and find they can use the most basic of functions (back buttons, copy/paste, open in new window/tab)

That is a problem, Adobe needs to improve on accessibility, very true. But you know what? This is ultimately the task of the site author(s). Let's say Adobe's authoring tools will support HTML5 tomorrow, with all canvas glory and stuff. How can you even assume that people will not just continue building unaccesible sites, because they don't care? Technology can help, but it will always be misused, bear this in mind, please.

* People who like to browse the web on internet-ready non-PC / Mac equipment (portable devices, integrated devices like games consoles and TVs, etc).

You haven't heard of the Open Screen Project yet, right? Adobe hands you the code, if you need to port the Flash Player. That's the main focus of Adobe right now, bring Flash to more devices like smartphones, etc. and use dedicated hardware for "heavy" tasks like video decoding or graphic calculations. And btw, Flash is available on the Wii and the PS3, that's 2 out of 3 for the current generation of game consoles, not too shabby, heh? ;-)

* People who just get sick of intrusive ad banners (some even come bundled with sound effects).

Are HTML5 based ads less intrusive? Why? Sorry, but this is not an argument. Ads will stay with us even if Flash becomes irrelevant.

And the problem is compounded by the fact that if and when you do stumble across a Flash heavy site (excluding ads), there's often no way to view the site without Flash - thus either forcing the user to run Flash or lose content.

Again as stated before, this is ultimately the task of the site author(s).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by boldingd on Tue 16th Feb 2010 20:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

While I'm certainly in the flash-hating camp, and I agree with your other points, I just have to point out, this, at least, is just as much the fault of the page designer as it is the fault of Adobe:

* Surfers who stumble across a whole site built in Flash and find they can use the most basic of functions (back buttons, copy/paste, open in new window/tab)


There could conceivably be safe-and-sane uses of Flash in web design -- i.e. if provision is made for fall-back in the event that the user does not have (or has disabled) Flash. Mis-use of Flash in a pathological design is more the fault of the designer.

Reply Parent Score: 2