News Apple launches HTML 5 demo site

Question for people here:

What capacity does HTML5 have for making rudimentary applications? (if any)

Because Flash can and has been used to create games and so on (a fair few apps for the iphone are ports of said flash games).
IMHO This is the reason for Apple's near irrational hatred of flash: it is potential competition for the app store.

Some of the excuses Apple are giving may be somewhat valid, but be assured money is the real reason here

 

This.

 

Financial suicide. The majority of the creative industries use Macs.

 

Bootcamp

But yes, Adobe would never risk withdrawing their products from Mac (though they could do it quite successfully in the case of Photoshop because there is no product with the same high feature set.)

Adobe's clearly not happy with the Flash situation, but it still has Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat, all de-facto high quality programs.

 

Safari only?

It works fine with Trident, Webkit, and Presto based browsers but not with Gecko based web browsers.

Works with: Internet Explorer, Opera, Maxthon, Sleipnir, Chrome, Safari etc
Doesn't render properly with: Fire Fox, Flock etc

 

What are you saying this list works fine with?

The HTML5 demos made by Apple, at http://www.apple.com/html5 do not work with any browser other than Safari. Internet Explorer doesn't even support HTML5 yet. Firefox supports HTML5 pretty well.

 

What is this point of this ? You can recreate *some* of the things Flash does in some of the browsers.... What a HUGE leap forward!!

The video was stuttery for me on Windows 7, had no scrub bar and was a single layered video file (no full screen, shame).

The typography demo has been done to death with Flash, but you also have the option of localised content, right to left text, vertical text (for regions that read that way)....

The gallery was as dull as dishwater and again done many times before in Flash only much better and smoother.

The audio demo, look you can press a button to play music (no volume control?).

The transitions demo and the 360 degree, again done a million times in Flash, (oh and hey in Flash, you can have animated stuff transitioning too!)

The VR demo won't run on Windows, though I would like to see it....

So we should all abandon Flash because less than 0.05% (that's half of one percent) of the people accessing the internet (Apple's mobile iProducts) can't view the content, we should use html5! Oh dear, but 60% of the people use Internet Explorer (no html 5) and 25% use Firefox (no support for h.264 video in html5).

All of this to replicate what Flash does, but not quite as well.... Yeah where do I sign up?

 

Apple is NOT only locking the demo down to safari because Safari is their product.
They're doing it (also) because Safaris has more HTML5 features in it than most other browsers. The argument of "it's ironic that this is closed" seems rather narrow-minded and uninformed about the state of the technology. The standard is still in DRAFT stages.

Noone said that HTML5 was the thing of NOW. Merely "the thing of the future". IE9 should support at least rudimentary HTML5 and CSS3. Their demo already showed bits.
The fact that browser authors are focussing (and using it as marketing hype) on their Javascript engines says a LOT about the fact that they have realised that more and more sites are moving to Javascript and HTML/CSS rather than flash.


There is merrit in the statement that there are still applications for Flash (e.g. Games). HTML5 and CSS3 are not there, nor are they planning to be there. Flash will stay the platform for that (alongside SIlverlight and various lesser known platforms).

Apple is saying "Look - HTML5. We can do it. Not all browsers can yet. BUT - once it hits, you'll see a better web, one that works on mobile devices. One that works without having to download plugins. One that doesn't use extra overheads."
And, IMO, they're dead right.
Just watch the next year or two (maybe more).

To maybe give everyone a rough overview of what's how far in terms of HTML5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML5)

 

+ rep to you BentAnat, for your wording, reasoned debate and trying your best to educate the irrational.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't. The latest versions of Google Chrome support more features than Safari, according to beta.html5test.com, and Apple's use of HTML5 is quite limited. Granted, I use the developer version of Chrome so I don't know what it would be like in the so-called stable version, but I assume it would be much of the same.

It would be relatively simple for Apple to embed Javascript code that would check if a specific browser can or cannot handle the technology. That's how html5test does it, and the elements Apple is using are not even the most complicated parts of HTML5.

If Apple were trying to promote open standards, they'd use checks to see if the browser supported something instead of just assuming that it does not.

Correct, Javascript has traditionally been a weak part of IE.

I'd say that it is great that Apple are trying to push through HTML5. I do however think that they have an ulterior motive, and Flash is certainly not the piece of crap Apple makes it out to be in press releases, in fact even on OS X Flash in Chrome (using the fancy new plugin system I believe) is faster than HTML5 in Safari, in almost every way.

HTML5 is a great new standard, but Flash is also a tremendous technology, built on decades of development, and it's very well optimized.

It would be foolish to simply shun one without weighing up the benefits. There are great uses of HTML5, but there are also ways in which Flash is superior. There are many sites which could not have been made in Flash, but there are also sites which could be better done in HTML5.

Nevertheless, they are still important technologies, and we should not simply drop one for the other for simplicity's sake.

 

Safari 5 out this week and it adds more support for HTML5 and quite a few improvements. Should be interesting.

 

More features does not mean the same. Worse yet (at this point in time) would be that even "the same" could mean slightly different interpretations of the standards. I mean - interpretation IS after all a major reason for browser incompatibilities.

Flash is not the POS that apple make it out to be. Apple is not the devil that a (equally bitter) Adobe is painting. It is a fact though that Flash gets misused due to its ease of use.
As for speed - Silverlight used to be (not sure if it still is) faster than flash in some instances.
It's not quite worth pushing for pure speed if the standards are not yet finalised. I believ they're trying to push for implementation and standards finalization more than the pure speed argument.

Agree 100% on this. They're both great. Apple and Adobe are locked in a bit of a dongfight at the moment, with the pot calling the kettle black.
HTML5 is not here to replace flash in its entirety. It's not supposed to.
Adobe obviously feels threatened to an extent (as they would definitely lose marketshare - especially the bits of the market that misuse flash).
Apple is using their "cross platform" argument way too early.
Let's keep in mind that Adobe pushed for iPhone flash, and apple pushed for native integration for flash on mac products a while ago. Both were too stubborn.

 

Chrome and Safari both use the same rendering engine, the only difference is usually the version. A simple disclaimer that says 'This is designed to work on Safari, there may be issues if you don't have it', like all those websites back in the time of IE6 did would be a great way of showing HTML5.

Misinterpretation has not been such of a problem in the past. What has been a problem is Microsoft choosing to selectively ignore parts of the HTML spec in favour of it's own, usually rubbish version.

Yes, Silverlight is under-used in the whole marketplace. I love that demo where it changes the video bitrate dynamically based on what your connection speed is.
Although, I'm not totally sure what Silverlight is good for since there are so few examples of it in general use.

Apple is having a little bit of a hissy fit though, and Adobe hasn't made any deliberately provocative moves.

For example, Adobe writes compiler for iPhone that compiles flash applications into iPhone apps to appease Apple and make life easier for the millions of Flash developers to develop for iPhone. Apple blocks said compiler, saying it would lead to substandard applications (though interestingly, they use an identical technique when they run iTunes on Windows).

 

To spill some oil into the fire....

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/06/07/adobe-warns-of-flash-acrobat-attack/1

 

Unrelated. That's to do with Acrobat embedding Flash and Shockwave files in such a way that they could be harmful. It's nothing at all to do with Flash embedded in browsers. Sorry to disappoint.

 

Yes, it might be the more polite way of doing it. But it's business as well. I'd have done the same, were I in Apple's shoes. The little disclaimer also has the issue that 80% of people don't read disclaimers (like - EVER) and would go "ZOMG!SUXXASS!!!!" when they view it in IE6. This way they go "ZOMG!Hipocrites" and install Safari, see the demo the way it's supposed to be and ONLY that way.

Silverlight can do most things that Flash can, actually. Jut the tools are expensive. Expression Blend, Visual Studio, etc. But it has some cool features, and occasionally is faster than the competition. Biggest advantage that Silverlight has is probably the .NET familiarity.

Not quite correct, actually.

Apple has been talking to adobe about native flash implementation into iPhone OS for a while. the condition was that Adobe doesn't get to see native OS code (which is understandable, given that this could lead to - well - crashing, etc if not handled right). Effectively this woulld've led to Apple people working with Adobe on mobile Flash. This would've helped with Flash's lack of touch input, etc. Adobe said "nein". This is a LONG time ago, already, and all from memory. Not sure where I read that anymore, so it MIGHT be inaccurate.

Then Adobe did their own, rather sketchy implementation of Flash on iPhone OS 3 (i think).
Apple had no issues with it, except that it was sketchy, and not near as smooth as it would've been had they taken Apple's native implementation route, hence Apple declining a native implementation, and starting to introduce quality control standards. Adobe didn't meet them, and the Flash app got blocked.
Given Apple's reputation for "stuff that works", this is understandable, and quite possibly a prudent move.

Then apple announced iPhone SDK 4, which would cripple the Flash compiler that Adobe wrote, due to better security.
Adobe threw their toys out of the cot and beisdes their Evangelists telling apple to "Go screw yourself", threatened to sue Apple over this. A move which clearly says "WTF! We invested all this money and now it doesn't work...FU, Apple.", rather than going "oh sh** - didn't see that coming".
It's at this point that Steve Jobs decided to publish the infamous Open Letter, mentioning why he thinks Adobe is reacting wrong, and tried to pull his company into a light that's better than the Adobe-warped lighting it was in at the time.
Adobe countered this with a very sarcastic ad campaign openly beating Apple with it.

It's really a nasty game that both sides are playing at the moment. Noone's quite right, and both companies' moves are understandable.

 

No, I wasn't suggesting that. If it detected that required elements weren't there, it would terminate and suggest Safari. If however it detect the elements were there, it should launch and say that if you have any problems, try Safari.

For me, I just thought "Screw this, I'm not using Safari!" and found the developer version that works fine with Chrome.

That's kinda cool. Flash is expensive too, though, and for people who generally can't afford expensive software (students, mainly), Microsoft makes their software available free.

How long ago is long ago? I remember that at the start of '09 Adobe had said that they were working with Apple to move it across, and before that Steve Jobs had said that he needed a middle version of Flash - between Flash Lite and Flash Desktop.

I think this depends on where you read your news. CS5 has a compiler in that compiles Flash to iPhone applications, and some of those apps did get into the app store. I'd argue that if those apps were substandard, they wouldn't have managed to get in, based on the fact that Apple has refused apps in the past simply for not offering enough information.

I'm not sure this was the case. I'm pretty sure that it works fine, even with SDK4, but the only thing that blocked it was the agreement, which says that you can only develop in Objective C or C++. That pretty much blocked both Adobe or Novell (who ported .NET to the iPhone and also had apps in the appstore (I think Novell had a few hundred).

Agree with that. I still think that Apple is wrong with their decision to block Adobe from the app store. Even if the apps were substandard, surely they'd just have been removed by Apple's censors?

 

I think we're talking past one another
Apple (with SDK4) blocked a few native code options, which (AFAIK - i haven't used flash on an iPhone or the iPhone SDK) effectivel blocks the CS5 compiler.
As for the app store, It sounds to me like the problem isn't the flsh app, but rather the flash itself...

 

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with that +rep

 

Repped you right back.

Just to showcase some HTML5 that DOES work in browsers other than Safari (FF 3.6.3 for me):
Some Pseudo Parallax stuff
Particles doing text and stuff
Mouse sensitive liquid particles demo thing
The Mezmerizer

and for two really impressive ones (to me):
Cloth Simulation
Blowing up real streaming video

Of course, these are all HMTL5 and Javascript.

These, and more, here