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 409420
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by wargum on Mon 15th Feb 2010 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
wargum
Member since:
2006-12-15

That's all completely irrelevant to the here and now.

Huh? I'm sorry, but you said Adobe completely neglects anything other than Windows and I mentioned Adobe's efforts to improve that. How that is completely irrelevant to the here and now, I don't see.

What about people still using P4's and 1GB RAM? (In fact, I know some people who run even lower spec systems)

The question is: What are we talking about, right now? What sites are so incredibly slow on such a machine? For HD video, I can only say this: It's a highly demanding task for a CPU. No x86 single core CPU can handle 1080p H.264. None. Not a single one. General purpose CPUs are just crappy at it. That's why mobiles, graphics cards etc. come with dedicated decoder chips nowadays. And in Flash Player 10.1, Adobe is using them on Windows.

So I ask you again: What exactly should be faster on such a machine and do you think that these sites would be faster when using HTML5 technology for everything?

Most home users don't upgrade their computer every 3 years. Most home users don't see a computer as a toy that needs updating frequently. They see it as a necessary evil and expect to keep using it for 5 to 10 years.

So why should we be excluding rich internet content from people who don't want to spend hundreds on their computer every 2 years. It's not as if the same content can't be rendered on systems via other media formats.

Again, what tasks/sites are you talking about? Whining doesn't make an argument.

You're still missing the point.
I'm stating why people dislike Flash.

Most people don't give a toss who's to blame, so they blame the technology.

So my point was 100% accurate.

Why blame Adobe for delivering a solution for a problem that WHATWG and W3C weren't able to adress? That's not Adobe's fault, they delivered. The wide adoption and variety of uses of Flash is proof for the need.

And what happens when Adobe moves to the next iteration of Flash? You are completely reliant on your games console updating it's firmware.

I'd sooner see HTML5 and not have to worry about firmware updates with every update to Flash.

If the game console maker doesn't update their browser to support the latest and greatest W3C standard, you are screwed, too.

And as for hand held devices - I'm still yet to be convinced that Flash will run smoothly on them when on content heavy sites.

For phones, good enough should be good enough. We will see, but the preview videos on the Palm Pre look promising.

HTML5 would.

We will see. It's also a question of the implementation. HTML5 isn't faster by definition just because it's open and Flash is "proprietary and bloated crap", right?

Of course they will. But Flash Ads are what people notice for the now - thus it's what they complain about thus my point about why they dislike Flash.

The overwhelming majority of people will probably never install a Flash blocker. Just some tech-savvy.

It wasn't a technical manual for Flash - it was a list of reasons why Flash was unpopular.

No, it was a list of reasons why YOU think flash is unpopular. An I tell you this: Most people don't know anything about Flash and thus they can't complain about it. Heck, most people probably don't know what a browser does or what a plugin is.

You're still making excusing for Flash.
I can see you love the technology but for once try switching of your bias and try to have an objective look at what people are complaining about.

I haven't done a single thing in Flash myself, yet. I don't love the technology. You'd better be objective about how many people are really complaining about it and if they even matter. Because I am not sure if they really do, Flash is well alive, from what I can see on the net everyday.

Most of your post consists of either shifting the blame (you even blamed users for trying to surf the internet on low spec machines rather than Adobe's shoddy plug ins!!)

It is totally legitimate to shift the blame. I don't blame users for trying to surf the internet on low spec machines. What I do is mention that there are demanding tasks that can't be executed well on low end hardware and that people with such hardware shouln't blame Adobe for their plugin if really the cause for the bad experience is the crappy hardware and not Flash. You still haven't mentioned a single site that you see as proof of how bad Flash is for these low end machines.

or arguing that Adobe plan (note: not yet implemented in consumer devices) to fix the problem.

This is getting awesome now :-)
All these HTML5 advocates are telling of how the future will be so HTML galore and Flash will die, because it's bad now. The Beta of Flash 10.1 is just a download away and will be realeased in the coming months. Look, I want HTML5 to succeed where it makes sense. But stating that Flash is already outdated and can be completely crushed by HTML5 is just funny to me. DISCLAIMER: That was a little off topic and not directly related to what you have said, though ;-)

Well all of that is just completely irrelevant to the plight of the average web surfer; Those that hate Flash, hate Flash for the reasons I've specified.

It's OK to hate Flash. Just don't pretend that your group is big enough to matter.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Laurence on Mon 15th Feb 2010 15:51 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Seriously mate, you're just arguing now for the sake of arguing so I'm not even going to waste my lunch hour debunking your myths.

All that needs to be said is that Flash DOES run like shit on average hardware.
Sure, Adobe might, finally, be doing something to rectify this, but it's too little too late and it won't hit most users desktops for years.

So teh fact remains, after 10 years of development, Flash is still a stinking pile of horse manure on the average desktop (and I'm not talking about streaming HD content on a netbook - I'm talking normal usage on normal peoples machines).

Sure, you can list hundreds of reasons why you think myself or users are being unfair to Adobe, but that doesn't change the fact that Flash still runs like sh*t.
In fact, quite frankly I'm sick of excuses. I gave Flash a fair chance (even built some Flash animations) a few years back, but now we're 10 years down the line and Flash has only become less competitive as other technology has caught up in terms of features and over-took in terms of performance.
Adobe / Macromedia had a huge head start but failed to progress on it so personally I think they deserve all the criticism they currently get.

Reply Parent Score: 2