This is definitely one of the fluffiest pieces I've ever read. There are numerous client-side frameworks as this piece mentions, but none of them really replace flash. Sure, the general development community is now finally coming to accept that there are clearly numerous use cases that flash was unnecessary for, but that doesn't replace flash.
We've had the ability to have rich internet applications in our browsers since 2005. There are literally hundreds of client-side frameworks, but I guess since Apple is creating one, all of a sudden it warrants a mention. All of the apple applications that were mentioned could've easily been done in any of those. Why only mention Cappucinno, and Sproutcore? What do they have to with flash? It's just complete fluffery, very frustrating.
Delivering a cross platform environment that provides the same functionality with more features.
Don't get me wrong here, the first sentence may sound as Flash "fanboyism", but i think it is rather objective.
Let me explain:
- Flash Apps work on Windows/MacOSX/Linux/smartphones/tablets with the exact same API and no difference in implementation of that API (in contrast to IE/Webkit/Opera/Firefox that implement different features and even differ in details when it comes to the implementation of HTML5/CSS3)
- Flash offers additional APIs that are not available in HTML5 (Webcam access for example)
- taking this further, Air enables cross platform installers, integration into the OS, even more APIs
And this can be explained really good, because Adobe can implement new features much faster than HTML standard committees can agree on new HTML features (plus a variety browsers that need to support those). So this shouldn't surprise anyone. It's wishful thinking when people claim that HTML5 can replace Flash in _every_ regard (and here i mean 100% alternative, which can't be true if you just take the webcam access).
HTML5 can replace the majority of todays Flash applications.
At least i can't think of many web sites that depend on Flash that wouldn't be possible with HTML5 (Websites that make use of Webcams being one of them). And i hope all those navigational elements, advertisings and whatever people chose Flash for, will be replaced with proper HTML in the future!
To implement a full fledged multimedia website is harder with HTML5 than with Flash, imo (think of cross browser compliance and difference in performance between browsers).
Just to make my standpoint clear: I would not create a website with Flash nowadays, even if it means less effort. HTML5 is for the web. Flash should die. The "fact" that it can be extremely difficult to create those web sites remains, though.
Regarding the article:
Am i missing something or isn't this just another JS-framework? There are already hundreds of them out there, why is this labeled as "Flash alternative"? Unless i am missing a point this looks like nothing fundamentally new. Seen in the light of the headline every JS-framework is a Flash alternative.
It seems like the majority of things people use Flash for, then, could be replaced with a cross-browser plug-in that exposes a unified API for accessing resources outside the browser (i.e. webcams, microphones, whatever Air does, etc.) from Javascript, and is updated by some process quicker than a web standards committee—a "Cool New Thing engine" of sorts. If it allowed browsers to override its features with their own, each feature could "graduate" from the plug-in's codebase when it became implemented natively by all browsers.
"could be replaced with a cross-browser plug-in that exposes a unified API for accessing resources outside the browser (i.e. webcams, microphones, whatever Air does, etc.)"
So to get rid of the Flash plugin you are proposing a new plugin which is not a HTML standard. Who is supposed to write such a plugin and how would it differ from Flash, then?
Chrome Frame comes to my mind, this covers IE6,7,8 but not Firefox. May be a good candidate, but Chrome Frame has been around for a while now, and i haven't heard of web sites using it. Chrome Frame could lead the way to "one standard implementation of HTML5" which could at least eliminate some of the major pain (performance and cross browser differences). It's a nice thought, but somehow i have my doubts about Chrome Frame becoming that popular. Too much politics in the browser war. Also, many enterprises don't allow users to install that, which in turn makes it a no go for most web sites.
I'm suggesting, I think, that Adobe drop the current "target" of their flash plug-in as a client-side embedded viewing frame for a special filetype that's actually an executable running in a proprietary VM, and just make it into said plug-in, basically a support framework for browsers. Expose everything that's currently exposed to Actionscript to Javascript instead, in other words.
It's not something that Adobe would ever want to do—but it might be something they eventually will be forced into, after they realize no one is really using Flash all that much any more.
That bridge already exists ... Flash and JavaScript can communicate with each other and in the form you're describing - http://www.happyworm.com/jquery/jplayer/latest/demo-01.htm will use OGG if it can or MP3+Flash behind HTML/JS/CSS.
So why isn't anyone pushing to include that in HTML5? (That is, HTML5 the let's-do-new-stuff-with-browsers movement, not specifically the markup language standard.)
HTML5/JS/CSS is obviously going to do a lot more than the previous, current antique standards and it's going to be equivalent or even better than Flash in some cases. And if Flash/Silverlight/etc stopped developing right now that might still be true next year.
Implementing new features on your own is not much different from what Adobe does.
For example: Let's say Firefox implements an API for Webcams. Will MS implement the exact same API in IE? Unlikely. First of all, the have Silverlight (i am supposing that Silverlight can access the Webcam as well, but don't know for sure). MS wants to push Silverlight and defend IE marketshare. With MS blocking this feature, it essentially means that noone will use it because every website is developed with the first requirement "Has to reach the vast majority of users", which in the end means "IE support".
They would eventually develop an own API, which turns out to be incompatible to Firefox' API if pressure is high enough.
Now, if you have the thought "but if MS/Apple/Google/Mozilla/Opera would agree on that new API", that's what the standardization process is all about.
What you describe is exactly the opposite of how HTML evolved up to this point. Usually precisely what has happened has been that browsers implemented things that the others didn't support, got some traction, were widely copied, and then, finally, standardized.
I did actually mean "the standardization process", I was just differentiating from the part of HTML5 that's about, well, HTML. This is more of a feature that belongs in the DOM exposed to ECMAScript, which the HTML5 movement seems to be all about pushing forward the standards for as well.
My guess is that the flash tool-chain will be a lasting reason that it won't get instantly replaced by any of these new frameworks. There are a ton of developers and designers out there that know how to build flash and don't want to start learning new tools in unproven frameworks.
That said, I think the more and more bloated nature of adobe's tools will become a huge weakness. Developers will be able to build tools for much more specific work-flows that feed directly into specific use cases. Sproutcore and this one seem to be aimed at the 'desktop feel' app development for html5, I'm guessing there will be other frameworks and tools for creating games, vector animations, silly interactive websites, etc. Each of tho uses should grow it's own tool/framework specific for the task
The real Flash "killer" is whatever commercial product they release to compete with the Flash artist tools.
The only people who care about Flash are those with investments. Artists don't want to relearn tools, or worse; their worst fear is writing code as a replacement for an animation timeline. The businesses that employ these artists are happy with the existing pipeline, and any switch in platform looks like a huge risk.
Every unbiased developer I talk to perceives a move away from Flash as a better Internet. It seems we don't move for the same reason we're using QWERTY rather than Dvorak keyboards. Regardless of their motivation, Apple pushing Flash toward obsolescence is a net win.
The tipping point will be when someone, maybe even Adobe, releases a product identical to existing tools.
Now it seems even more odd that Apple doesn't bother to include Lucida Grande on the iPhone or iPad, since that forms the cornerstone of Cocoa's interface. On the iPhone and iPad, they seem to use Helvetica instead (which is far less suited for small text).
I see Helvetica on the iPhone platform as more of an aberration (and possibly merely the result of license bickering, not through serious consideration). It doesn't seem to make any sense to switch to it on the portable devices. This has been partially mocked here: http://blog.cocoia.com/2008/swiss-interface-syndrome/
Anyway, the screenshot of the Apple booking interface shows Lucida Grande in use. When viewed on the iPad/iPhone, it'll have to drop back to Helvetica instead of the intended font. Hopefully Apple will see sense, though, and add Lucida Grande to OS 4.0 or beyond since its absence makes little sense.
It's not an aberration, it's part of the Jobsian Bauhaus design sense. He got to force the main font choice on the phone, where he probably wasn't able to on Mac OS X.
Maybe, but I can't buy it. They've stuck to the Lucida-esque Myriad Pro For their display advertising and Web graphics, for the most part and Jobs could have easily changed that stuff. That aside, can you imagine Helvetica replacing Lucida on OS X generally? It'd look hideous :-( (And I'm a big Helvetica fan - but it sucks for clarity at small point sizes.)
They hired Charles Jolley, founder of Sprout it, which developed SproutCore. The framework itself is open source but is sheparded by jolly at apple, along wih his team.
It is a pretty awful name. If you're going up against something with a name as catch as "Flash" you'll need something that doesn't sound like an intestinal parasite.
So this is going to be write once run once? Or in other words run just on Apple hardware? Or run as speedily as iTunes or QuickTime does on the PC? Good luck with that!
We don't need flash alternatives, we need support for SVG and canvas. SVG is a fine alternative to flash and it is supported by all major browsers.
And browser APIs to fill the voids where flash also exceeded its animation-only competency, like sockets (we already have them) and device control (cams, mics, etc)
We've had the ability to have rich internet applications in our browsers since 2005. There are literally hundreds of client-side frameworks, but I guess since Apple is creating one, all of a sudden it warrants a mention. All of the apple applications that were mentioned could've easily been done in any of those. Why only mention Cappucinno, and Sproutcore? What do they have to with flash? It's just complete fluffery, very frustrating.