backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by robinthakur.. on May 6 at 10:35 AM


"Man I love HTML5, but that Flash really gives me a headache!" "Me too, Steve, oh my gosh!!"  (Source: Coder Log)
Microsoft also supports use of proprietary video codec -- h.264

Proponents of HTML5, a hot new web standard that adds video and audio capabilities to the HTML stable, say that it is essential to free the web from the proprietary clutches of Adobe, maker of Flash.  Critics says that it's just a pretty box for another proprietary offering.  They point out that while HTML5 as an open standard could support open video standards like Ogg Theora, all the industry' major players have embraced h.264 -- a proprietary video codec -- as the future of HTML5, essentially killing the hopes of widespread support or adoption of an open codec.

Apple is a big fan of h.264 and a big fan of HTML5.  It doesn't think much of Adobe, though.

Perhaps a more important question, though, is where does Microsoft, who holds more than 90 percent of the operating system market, stand on this issue?   

Interestingly, in a blog to web developers, Microsoft's General Manager for Internet Explorer, Dean Hachamovitch agrees with Apple's assessment.  He states that HTML5 is the "future of the web".  He then proceeds to toss dirt at Adobe, commenting that their "reliability, security, and performance" haven't been so great.

He then softens the blow a bit, remarking that Flash is important to "a good consumer experience on today's web" -- but only because there's not many alternatives widely available currently (most users use Internet Explorer, which doesn't currently support HTML5).

Interestingly, in the talk the Microsoft exec totally ignores Microsoft's own proprietary plug-in Silverlight that it's long been trying to peddle.

Microsoft and Apple agreeing on HTML5?  Microsoft following "Apple's line" with the Windows Phone 7 smart phone operating system?  Windows 7 being fully supported on Boot Camp?  You'd think that Microsoft and Apple were old buddies, not bitter rivals.  What's the world coming to?



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Did they, actually do this....
By damianrobertjones on 4/30/2010 12:24:30 PM , Rating: 5
"Microsoft Teams Up With Apple, Dissing Adobe and Praising HTML5"

?

Is this a serious tech page?




RE: Did they, actually do this....
By bissimo on 4/30/2010 12:32:07 PM , Rating: 5
Nope.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By B3an on 4/30/2010 2:01:13 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah not if Jason writes it.

What a totally misleading title though, once again, in the quest for page views.

Funny how MS conveniently dont mention there own Silverlight though.
Neither Flash or SL will ever be replaced by HTML5 though, it's an extremely limited and simple language. Nowhere near as powerful as Flash's Action Script 3.0, or Silverlights .NET language. It's not just sites you can with them either, you can make full blown apllications, 3D, game engines.... theres even games on Steam now that are completely Flash based. Large companies like EA have also used Flash for game interfaces.

I'm actually making a Flash website right now (i know i should be working) and the part i'm currently doing, an intro animation using vector graphics of people that are also drawn within Flash... it's just one of the many many things that are not possible with HTML.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By 67STANG on 4/30/2010 2:37:35 PM , Rating: 1
Totally agree. Flash will still have a space to fill even after HTML5 comes out. It will probably lose a lot of the streaming video market, but there is much more to it than that, and that's what a lot of the stories like this ignore.

Since we are talking about Jobs and Gates, I thought I'd throw this out there for anyone how has ~9mins to burn and wants to ROFL: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-201...


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By karielash on 4/30/2010 4:33:52 PM , Rating: 4
Agreed, all those malware writers will still need a way to easily exploit systems and Adobe PDF and Flash formats will still fill that role with aplomb.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By 67STANG on 4/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Did they, actually do this....
By elvarsteinn on 4/30/2010 2:51:34 PM , Rating: 5
Well just to point it out, there is SVG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graph... - not supported by IE yet) for open vector graphics, which in conjunction with JavaScript and HTML5 could provide you with a lot of the Flash functionality you mentioned.

Still not saying Flash will be replaced (not yet anyway). But we all know what eventually became of Java Applets, which were considered to be guaranteed as the future of the web. Who's to say eventually HTML6 or so entirely replaces Flash/SL?

To prove a point, here's a 3D-Engine demo written in JavaScript/HTML5 (requires Opera, Chrome or FireFox(slowest)):
http://deanm.github.com/pre3d/monster.html


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By B3an on 4/30/2010 4:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
I know about SVG but that combined with Java and HTML still could not do what i want.
But lets just say it could... why would i use this for my work when it can all be done in Flash with superior animation tools (and even the graphics are drawn in Flash without the need for something like Photoshop). It would take longer any other way and if i already didn't know Java and HTML so well, i'd also have to learn them, so the learning curve is also higher.

And again, HTML 6 or HTML 100 could never replace Flash or SL. It's simply not made for certain things.

The link with the 3D demo, that would use Java for the actual engine. HTML would only be used for simple things as it could never do anything like that on it's own.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By B3an on 4/30/2010 4:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
BTW i'd like to add, that Flash's ActionScript and SL's .NET are updated more regularly than HTML is. So by the time HTML6 (for instance) is complete, Flash and SL's coding languages would have gone through many new versions and updates. And new versions are the software are released yearly.

Now look at how long it's taken for HTML4 to get to HTML5, and it's still not complete until 2012.

It's one of the few benefits of having one company control something, as with open standards they often take forever to be updated.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By Sunday Ironfoot on 5/1/2010 4:53:23 AM , Rating: 3
There is a 3D graphics library that's part of HTML5, it's called WebGL, a subset of OpenGL. Google ported Quake 2 over to it, and got Quake 2 actually running in a Browser with no propriatary plugins.

Also JavaScript is simply getting faster and faster, and there are a lot of branching technologies that are part of the HTML5 umbrella (WebGL, Web SQL databases for offline storage, multi-threading support, WebSockets, Geolocation, native audio/video, Canvas, SVG, CSS animations etc etc). Check out this presentation on HTML5, written in HTML5 http://apirocks.com/html5/html5.html#slide1

HTML5 will replace Flash/Silverlight, it needs to. All you Flash developers need to learn HTML5 soon, or you'll be out of a job.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By B3an on 5/1/2010 10:26:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
HTML5 will replace Flash/Silverlight, it needs to. All you Flash developers need to learn HTML5 soon, or you'll be out of a job.


Dont be ridiculous. People like you have no idea of what you're talking about, you have no experience with Flash either.
You see it's not just about what HTML5, or rather what the many other technologies that work with it can do. It's also about development time, learning curve, ease.
Everything can do done in Flash, and animated with professional tools, and drawn with professional tools all inside Flash.

To do something with HTML5, not only would i have to know HTML but also a ton of other techs ((WebGL, CSS, Canvas, SVG) just to do something. Then i would also have to draw the graphics is another software program.

This is extremely messy and time consuming. It's a massive step backwards. Even the end result would probably be lower quality tool as i dont have professional animation tools at my deposal.

This is one of the biggest reasons that many Falsh dev's like myself will NEVER stop using Flash. It's all about time and money.


By robinthakur on 5/6/2010 10:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
Well I do actually know what you're talking about as I'm a Flash developer also, but would anybody use Flash if you had to create and animate everything using ONLY Actionscript without the WYSIWHG 'pro' tools?

Its certainly possible, which is not to say that people want to do it. The same is true of Dreamweaver, its an application which abstracts the need to know CSS/HTML/Databases etc. but it still uses the underlying technologies.

Are you saying that a company like Adobe couldn't make a WYSIWYG app like Flash using the HTML5 and associated technologies on offer? Adobe's future, as I'm sure they are only too aware, lies in making HTML5 as easy to use as possible, or in standing behind Flash and fighting their corner. On desktops and laptops, Flash is ubiquitous as a plug-in. In the mobile space which is growing, it is not nearly as available on most devices, not just Apple ones.

The fact that the iPhone OS devices can't run it at all is a very significant thing to a lot of people. Are they more likely to blame Apple for not allowing Adobe to install Flash on the iPhone OS, or are they more likely to blame the person that designed a Flash dependent website which isn't standards-aware and makes no provision for a case where somebody doesn't have Flash? Its a bit like writing code assuming that everybody has local admin access. Flash is great at what it does but it is not an open-standard at the end of the day, and wishing does not make it so! It doesn't ship with the OS, its a plug-in like quicktime or Xvid etc as far as users are concerned which can be complex to get installed and working for the average imbecile.

If I'm designing a site, and the brief is one that works equally well on mobile devices as it does on the desktop (and most clients are aware of this need these days because so many people own iPhones and derivatives) then bottom line is that I won't expect mobile devices to have Flash and will design accordingly, possibly cutting Flash from the desktop version and using something more standards compliant.

Its still not possible to cut out proprietary stuff for things like video yet (easily) but at least users tend to be more forgiving of sites where certain non-crucial elements might be missing but the main content is navigatable, which is how it should be really. Just because FLash is widely used now does NOT mean that should HTML5 rise to the fore that Flash use will decrease and plateau if nobody wants to use it. As for Silverlight, forgetaboutit MS, this ship has sailed!


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By photek2020 on 5/1/2010 10:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of Flash dev's like myself do know HTML, CSS, JAVA and many other languages.

But whats been pointed out above, is that it is simply far more convenient, faster and easier to do everything with Flash.

If some sort of software came along that made it easy using HTML5 + WebGL + Canvas + everything else, and also has professional drawing tools within it ... then i would give it a try. But even if that did happen it would probably take many years to even come close to the level at which Flash is now at.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By nilepez on 5/1/2010 7:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it will take years. HTML 5 is a brand new standard that, AFAIK, isn't close to ratification.

But 5 or 10 years from now, who knows? As a user, I'm not a fan of Flash. I block all of it and only enable it if I absolutely have to (thus youtube get's a pass, while virtually no other site does).

As a rule, if a site only has a flash interface, I don't go to that site, because, IME, flash UIs are generally awful.

I can't compare it to silverlight, because I can't remember going to a site that uses it.

Tools are important, and if Flash or Silverlight remain light years ahead of HTML5, those technologies will stomp the latter, but my guess is that HTML5 will have it's day. Flash has too many security issues, and short of a rewrite, I don't see that changing.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By B3an on 5/1/2010 8:47:02 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure there will be some good software for making HTML5 websites. Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 is already one of them, and it also can be used for Java, CSS, PHP, XML and many other languages.

BUT, with this kind of software, and how HTML is... the software does not work the same way as Flash. It has no real graphics, drawing, animation, and effects tools or any kind, or a timeline for animations, it's purely for coding and page layout.

I really dont think it's possible to have anything that competes with Flash because of this.. i mean, with Flash theres just one powerful coding language that can do it all. With HTML, WebGL, CSS, JAVA and so on... it's just too difficult to make software that somehow combines all this and integrates it so that it compares to Flash from a dev's perpective.
If it does happen it's a long way off, and by that time Flash and SL will just be even more advanced.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By gralex on 4/30/2010 7:45:24 PM , Rating: 3
Damn... hit "Worth Reading" by mistake.

Cheap thrills guys... Blogs are by definition opinionated (as they should be). What some of you interpret as sensationalism, could well be genuine frustration. I get the feeling J.M. is one of those rare people that can spit out the answer to a complex equation, but without showing you all the steps involved.

Spoon feeding an audience has its virtues, but it's hardly a blog prerequisite.


By photek2020 on 5/1/2010 11:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
It does not matter if it's a blog. This is not DailyBlogs anyway. Stuff like this should not even be on the front page.

And if something has a title in no relation to the "blog" then when i click on something, who knows what i will end up reading... thats not exactly a professional thing to do not is it.
This title is purely for hits.


By icanhascpu on 5/1/2010 9:34:45 PM , Rating: 1
Once upon a time people wrote with a bit more dignity and didn't have to use cowardly excuses as to why they write crap.


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By Redwin on 5/3/2010 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
Its NOT a blog post, its an article under the Internet section. The (blog) link next to the by-line is simply that -- a link to Jason's blog.

The link appears next to the by-line in every DailyTech article, and in nearly every storie's comments section, there are inevitably masses of people like you who will reply to criticism of the article with "But its a blog, look at the link next to his name, he can say what he wants!" (Granted, I think authors can say what they want irrelevant of what heading content is posted under, but that's neither here nor there)

I wish so badly that DailyTech would just REMOVE those (blog) links next to the by-lines so they would stop confusing people.


By Spivonious on 4/30/2010 12:34:34 PM , Rating: 5
It's a Jason Mick Headline®


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By MrBlastman on 4/30/2010 12:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
Serious? I'll show you serious.

The REAL caption under the picture should go like this:

Steve: "So Bill, I can call you Bill, right? I think it is hilarious that all these people actually listen to us."

Jobs(thinking to himself while grasping fingers): "I really wish I could kill this guy. Do you think he notices that I'm making fun of him by crossing my legs in a nut-crushing manner?"


By amanojaku on 4/30/2010 12:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
As serious as a Peek Freans. And that's a very serious cookie. :-p


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By Omega215D on 4/30/2010 12:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
Why no serious? Let's put some straightness in that face!

Next headline is gonna read: "Adobe says word to yo' mother"


By Breathless on 4/30/2010 1:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
get it right, its "word tuh ya 'mutha'"


RE: Did they, actually do this....
By The0ne on 4/30/2010 1:33:01 PM , Rating: 3
LOL no. This is just a "fun" place for some of us to come vent a bit, at least for me. If you want news, there are other more PROFESSIONAL sites to visit. This applies also if you wanted conversation and discussions that doesn't end up in name calling or references to wiki/google.

I come here, read a bit, get a good laugh on subjects I know really well. To actually think that most here would rely more on concrete research prior to their comments is ludicrous. If I don't know enough, I shut up. But that isn't the case here :) That's why it's "fun."


By omnicronx on 4/30/2010 12:33:14 PM , Rating: 1
Many of his points are correct, but you are a fool if you think his true motives have anything to do with his statements.

Plain and simple, Jobs wants control and will say anything to get it. In my opinion I don't think it would have mattered if Adobe was a good product and worked good on Macs, he wants to full control over the way the web works, and the only way to do that is to get rid of adobe. I'm not saying hes wrong here either, and quite frankly its quite reasonable, open standards should power the web (at least for consumer centric devices).I just don't think we should rush into something just to get away from Adobe.


By omnicronx on 4/30/2010 3:50:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Please - how does supporting an open standard like HTML5 lead to Apple controlling the web and how does not supporting as (piss poor) proprietary system like Flash help Apple control the web? What you are saying makes no sense.
I'm not sure how you derived that from my quote..

I meant Apple wants to control the way in which the web works on their devices. Flash is proprietary, Apple has absolutely no input in the way say... web video would work on their devices should they support flash. This way they can control the implementation and have input into the standard (and you have to know the big players like Google/MS/Apple have a lot of pull on that front). That being said, this is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact I do support it in theory.

My problem is certain key issues with HTML5 have not been hammered out yet specifically audio/video part of the spec. They can't decide on a standard and there are codec licensing issues involved. As it stands the flash container is the web standard for multimedia, licensing is left up to adobe in most circumstances, and to the user/developer it really does not differ platform to platform, browser to browser.

Until this happens HTML5 is not a suitable flash replacement, it could easily create more problems than it would solve(specifically fragmentation). And this goes back to my point, Jobs wants control and is making perfectly true statements to push his agenda. This is not about the 'inefficiencies of Flash', this is about Flash being what is essentially a proprietary standard. (which is where my 'Jobs would still be complaining if Flash were good' statement came from)

Finalize HTML5 and choose suitable standards before you start pushing it, don't be hasty just to gain control.. Thats all I'm saying.


By beerhound on 5/2/2010 4:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
You are right that it is about control, just not about controlling the web. Flash allows developers to deploy apps that could do an end-run around the App Store. If iPod, iPhone, iPad, iEtc supported flash, then users could get free or paid-for software without Apple getting a cut of the action.

Want to choose what software goes on your device and what features should be present? There's NOT an app for that......


By Krashnicki on 4/30/2010 12:41:04 PM , Rating: 3
HTML5 may be better for video playback but it is not an viable alternative to Flash in several aspects. IM not saying that Flash is without its flaws, but it definitely still has a place and useful purpose.

Form what I understand, HTML5 does not support interactive content, just video.

Also, look at Flash from a creative standpoint. It allows interactive games and content to be created with little coding ability.

Flash has benefits that HTML5 will not have. The reason Apple has a vendetta against Adobe is because Flash does not benefit Apple and can cut into sales of there precious apps. Thats its.

If I was adobe, i would lock patents on everything possible in the Creative Suite, and threaten to cut support of Adobe's Creative Suite to the Mac Platform if Mr Jobs doesn't start playing nice.


By omnicronx on 4/30/2010 1:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
What exactly is your point? You are just validating what he said.

Apple makes a lot of money as a result of the app store, not even from the apps themselves but for people using the platform as a result of such a large app catalog.

Problem is, many of these apps (the ones that don't tie into iPhone apis such as camera gps etc) have comparable and free flash alternatives. That was the point the OP was making, Flash does not benefit Apple, it could in fact hurt their bottom line.

The fact that Apple can buy Adobe in cash is irrelevent.. and FYI, i don't see how Apple's statements do not imply that they are saying get rid of flash for interactive content as they are clearly of not supporting it on their iPhone OS platform..

"We still want interactive content! We just don't want you to be able to use it!"


By nafhan on 4/30/2010 1:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
HTML5 is capable of interactive content. There's probably things that Flash can do that HTML5 can't, but interactivity isn't one of them. Here's a link to a paint app that's (supposedly) written in HTML5 and does not require Flash to be installed to run:
http://mugtug.com/sketchpad/
If that can be done, I would imagine Flash-like games would not be a problem, either. Once some decent tools are available (hint, hint, Adobe), I would think that creating interactive HTML5 applications won't be any harder than developing Flash apps. On the other side of the coin, development of resource hogging, slow, terrible HTML5 apps will also happen.


Micro-Soft-Apple
By SpaceJumper on 4/30/2010 2:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
New company name for Microsoft and Apple, Micro-Soft-Apple.




RE: Micro-Soft-Apple
By HalJordan on 4/30/2010 3:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
Micrapple.


RE: Micro-Soft-Apple
By napalmjack on 4/30/2010 3:26:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Micrapple


Easily shortens to Crapple.


So one general manager..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2010 12:03:01 PM , Rating: 5
Is speaking for Microsoft??

This isn't an official statement by Microsoft, it's just one guy in the middle of the totem pole saying his opinion.




Pushing open and closed at the same time = lies
By nafhan on 4/30/2010 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that they are pushing both HTML5 and h.264 should make it clear that they are interested in open standards only so far as it will hurt their competitors (Adobe) or increase their market share. They're attempting to make an open standard proprietary by using proprietary code for an essential piece of the project.
Google, please open source VP8, soon.




By ats on 4/30/2010 5:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that google can open source VP8 all they want, it won't make it patent free.


Doesnt suprise me
By ZachDontScare on 4/30/2010 4:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
The 'big guys' stand together to defend the proprietary h264 codec.

The people really hurt by this decision are the smallish businesses who cant afford the h264 licensing. What MS & Apple are essentially trying to do is to put in place a very high 'cover charge' for any business who might want to get into web based video (and thus compete with them). The open sourcers will just ignore the licensing... the big businesses will just pay it. The small businesses, yet again, get screwed.

Hopefully Google will throw a monkey wrench into their plans with VP8.




RE: Doesnt suprise me
By ats on 4/30/2010 5:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
h.264 isn't proprietary, its is licensed. Please learn the difference.

Also learn from history, VP8 likely infringes patents as well. They are just waiting for more people to use it before they start licensing and suing. JPG/VC1, etc all didn't face a patent issue until well after they were massively wide spread.


I'd like to point out..
By omnicronx on 4/30/2010 12:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They point out that while HTML5 as an open standard could support open video standards like Ogg Theora, all the industry' major players have embraced h.264
Well its too bad I'm going to have to point out that they are wrong, all the major players that have nothing to lose by using a proprietary codec are supporting h264. I'm pretty sure the Firefox team (and you know, any true open source player) would disagree with their statements.

I vote HTML5, but unless we can get something in writing that says there will never be licensing fees on web based h264 video, its not going to be a good idea in the long run.
I'm sure they can find a happy medium somewhere..

Seems like one big player (Google) may change their stance, there are rumors that they may open source their VP8 codec. Has alot of the upside that ogg Theora was missing, but would not have any licensing issues to worry about like h264.




RE: I'd like to point out..
By ats on 4/30/2010 5:34:46 PM , Rating: 1
By open source player do you mean VLC, MPC, etc? libavcodec? ffdshow? yeah, all support h264. Do you mean the universally regarded best h264 encoder, x264 which is also open source?

Ogg Theora is about 10-15 years too late. It's quality is substandard, its container is crap, and it feature set is uncompetitive.

And anyone who things that just because a codec doesn't have a licensing committee that it is patent free, is sadly mistaken, hello JPEG, VC-1, etc.


By JimmyJimmington on 5/1/2010 10:23:26 AM , Rating: 3
Why on earth would we even consider using Ogg over H.264 if it doesn't have hardware accelerated video decoding? In that respect, it's already BEHIND flash. The sooner we get to H.264, the better.




About the picture;
By chagrinnin on 4/30/2010 1:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
So if HTML5 had been called SHTML5,...would they have drawn a fist with seven fingers? :P




Didn't you just make a blog rant
By someguy123 on 4/30/2010 2:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
About how gizmondo having no journalistic standards and only caring about page views?

The hypocrisy is palpable.




Ulterior Motive?
By TallCoolOne on 4/30/2010 3:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Interestingly, in the talk the Microsoft exec totally ignores Microsoft's own proprietary plug-in Silverlight that it's long been trying to peddle.


Perhaps they're taking the opportunity to side with Apple on this one to stir up some FUD regarding Flash. This may cause some developers developers developers to have a look at Silverlight, which supports H.284. By not mentioning Silverlight now they avoid appearing biased to those who don't see the connection.




By crystal clear on 5/1/2010 1:48:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Interestingly, in the talk the Microsoft exec totally ignores Microsoft's own proprietary plug-in Silverlight that it's long been trying to peddle.


The same question I asked a long time ago,read this-

why do we have Silverlight?"
By crystal clear on 3/17/10, Rating: 2
By crystal clear on 3/17/2010 11:06:53 AM , Rating: 2

After five years of work, a draft of the HTML5 specification was released in 2008.

Parts of it are showing up in browsers, but the complete HTML5 work won't be done for years.

One of HTML5's goals is to move the Web away from proprietary technologies such as Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX, says Ian Hickson, co-editor of the HTML5 specification. (Hickson is a Google employee, while his co-editor David Hyatt works for Apple.)

So Microsoft heavily promoting HTMLs when silverlight exist today,now prompts me to ask the question-

why do we have Silverlight?"


After investing so much in Silverlight, now they kill it !

Microsoft should address this question in detail & be honest about it.


I need a response on this comment NOT from the readers/users, but from Microsoft.




the pic accompanying this article
By bill4 on 5/1/2010 2:04:29 AM , Rating: 2
totally proves mick has way too much free time.




Is This Really Going to Last?
By jah1subs on 5/1/2010 2:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
I have a hard time believing that Apple, Google and Microsoft are jumping in to support the same standard: HTML5 with H.264. Which one is going to be the first to go off in a different direction to try to gain advantage over the other two?




Flash will be around for awhile
By freeman70 on 5/1/2010 3:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe HTML5 is the future but it will take them years to provide the functionality that flash provides now. Not to say that I adore Adobe but they have provided some easy to use tools for people to make interesting websites. The state of the web now needs flash to provide this kind of content. Apple also doesn't want people playing FREE flash games, watching FREE flash videos, or using FREE flash apps. They lose control of the market. Microsoft probably doesn't like it either and because silverlight adoption is nowhere near that of flash, they have to agree. Flash may have its problems but people use it because like MS Windows it is popular and well supported.




your fist has an extra finger
By adl on 5/1/2010 7:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
just saying ;p




I wonder...
By Starcub on 5/1/2010 10:32:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
General Manager for Internet Explorer, Dean Hachamovitch agrees with Apple's assessment. He states that HTML5 is the "future of the web". He then proceeds to toss dirt at Adobe, commenting that their "reliability, security, and performance" haven't been so great.

Have any IE users noticed their tabs constantly crashing because of the Flash plugin? I have a sneaking suspicion that it's only a matter of time before Safari starts to exhibit the same behavior.




Follow the money, as always...
By T2k on 5/1/2010 11:51:01 AM , Rating: 1
....and it's very easy thisn time: both Apple and Microsoft are receiving large sums from the patent pool of MPEG-LA, the control group of h.264 - which is, keep in mind, a proprietary codec.

Apple's utterly pathetic, totally hypocritical BS about "open" and "free" and all the flat-out lies Jobs posted WRT Adobe Flash is nothing else just to maintain its tight grip on its own platform and Microsoft is happy to team up with Apple if at the end they can kill a competing, 3rd party platform and start making money themselves instead.

Scumbags. Nothing else than unscrupulous, worhtless piece ofg shit, crooked scumbags with a shining example being Steve Jobs, these cancer-striken turtlenecked piece of >>>>> freakshow.




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki