http://apirocks.com/html5/html5.html#slide1

I’m sure this is not new to most of you, but it’s a neat slideshow that covers some of the new features of HTML5. I was particularly impressed with slide 22 there.

5/6/2010 11:46:21 PM

pretty good presentation

i like the web workers and web sockets stuff


html5 is such a buzz word these days, nice to see some practical examples

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM. Reason : http://html5gallery.com/ too]

5/7/2010 12:00:01 AM

first post should have read “impressed with slide 24”

screw slide 22

5/7/2010 12:40:28 AM

Too bad webkit browsers dont have more saturation.



Firefox is the new IE in terms of being functionally retarded.

5/7/2010 2:37:27 AM

HTML5 in sound/video presentation just doesn't make sense to me. Flash has something like 98% market penetration. We already have a medium perfectly capable of delivering everything here without any additional hassle.

The only great argument I can see, so far, for HTML5 based multimedia presentation is that you can switch it over to an open format..... but no one is doing that. They're skipping Theora and heading straight for h.264. And whats the best way to play back h.264? Flash.

Just Jobs being a douche and making some waves - Microsoft is playing along because they have a direct competitor to Flash. It may look like Adobe is sitting on their laurels but I'd bet their army of programmers are cranking out iterations of the flash player that are exponentially more efficient. The question is can they deploy to phones, build universal efficient code, and do it all before HTML5 takes hold.

However, HTML5 is indeed the 'future' of whats underpinning the web. It's a new tool set that's just as revolutionary as XML was. Just as everyone transitioned to HTML4 to meet w3c compliance everyone will move on to HTML5. Audio and Video player? Eh, why bother. At least at the moment.

5/7/2010 5:21:14 AM

Quote :

"i like the web workers and web sockets stuff"

It's super useful for one of the projects I work on. It also works in IE8!

5/7/2010 7:49:37 AM

^^ http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=584556&page=31#13977125

what makes you think flash is the best way to play back h264? That’s the one thing that most people think Flash is worst for.

And one thing i wonder is if there is a “bytecode” version of the HTML5 stuff that can be deployed? Because it seems some really cool things would require massive amounts of HTML, where as a compiled flash bytecode binary would be smaller to download.

5/7/2010 9:25:12 AM

Quote :

"what makes you think flash is the best way to play back h264? That’s the one thing that most people think Flash is worst for."

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_html5_really_beat_flash_surprising_results_of_new_tests.php

5/7/2010 10:07:07 AM

you cant measure html5 video performance until ie9 platform preview 3 comes out. It has video tag support and hardware decoding. its also the only browser that will be relevent in the html5 discussion.

Although if you want the best video playback experience now, use silverlight + IIS streamin services.

5/7/2010 10:09:54 AM

shit I should've done IBSIE9R


In before Shaggy's IE9 Rant




And to be fair, Flash may have 98% market penetration, but that doesn't make it the best solution.


HTML5 still isn't mature enough for prime time WRT video playback, though. That much is evidenced by inconsistent experiences from browser to browser.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:23 AM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 10:15:10 AM

Thanks Stein!

Quote :

" WINDOWS TESTS: Safari wouldn't play HTML5 videos, so there was no way to test that. However, Flash 10.0 used 23.22% CPU but Flash 10.1 only used 7.43% CPU Google Chrome was more efficient on Windows than Mac. Playback with Flash Player 10.0 was about 24% more efficient than HTML5, while Flash Player 10.1 was 58% more efficient than HTML5. On Firefox, Flash 10.1 dropped CPU utilization to 6% from 22% in Flash 10.0 In IE8, Flash 10.0 used 22.41% CPU and Flash 10.1 used 14.62% CPU "

Quote :

"Here's what this all means in layman's terms: Apple isn't allowing Flash to become more efficient on their Mac OS X/Safari platform (or their iPod/iPhone/iPad one, either) by not providing the access to the hardware it needs to reduce its CPU load"

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:26 AM. Reason : eh, screw formatting the mac results. These are relevant to 90% marketshare.]

5/7/2010 10:23:44 AM

Quote :

"HTML5 still isn't mature enough for prime time WRT video playback, though. That much is evidenced by inconsistent experiences from browser to browser. "

5/7/2010 10:24:46 AM

iswydt

5/7/2010 10:28:37 AM

lol

5/7/2010 10:31:41 AM

i mean lets be serious. you've been able to playback video with the object tag forever. The only problem is the retards that make websites decided in their infinite stupidity that instead of using vc1 (which is on 95% of computers) they'd popularize shitty software like flash.

5/7/2010 10:33:04 AM

Quote :

""Here's what this all means in layman's terms: Apple isn't allowing Flash to become more efficient on their Mac OS X/Safari platform (or their iPod/iPhone/iPad one, either) by not providing the access to the hardware it needs to reduce its CPU load""

Apple opened up the APIs for this as of... last week, I think. Expect those numbers to change.

5/7/2010 10:33:32 AM

Quote :

"i mean lets be serious. you've been able to playback video with the object tag forever. The only problem is the retards that make websites decided in their infinite stupidity that instead of using vc1 (which is on 95% of computers) they'd popularize shitty software like flash."

The funny thing about this whole HTML5 video thing is that an <object>/<embed> tag for video is still a more widespread option (ignoring Flash), since they wind up doing the hand-off to whatever video player is installed on the machine. And now, with Windows 7, you've got both Windows and OSX that natively support h264 out of the box.

5/7/2010 10:52:22 AM

The funny part is none of this is going to matter soon. The moment Google open sources VP8, and then switches Youtube over to it, good bye H.264/Flash/VC-1 or whatever else for internet video. Every browser is going to have to support VP8 due to youtube, and everyone is going to use it because it'll be free.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM. Reason : :]

5/7/2010 10:54:33 AM

^^right. I wonder if IE9 is windows 7 only or of they'll package the h264 codec for destribution to vista/xp? to be honest i was kind of surprised microsoft didn't fight for vc1 as the html5 video codec. I guess it doesn't really matter for them either way.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ^]

5/7/2010 10:57:30 AM

no one cares about vp8 or whatever awful codec youtube uses. chrome already does h264 support and youtube already converts all youtube videos to h264 for iphone playback.

5/7/2010 11:00:09 AM

Quote :

"its also the only browser that will be relevent in the html5 discussion."

rofl

5/7/2010 11:01:15 AM

I'd just like to casually mention in this thread that Shaggy used to have a total hard-on for Ogg Vorbis.

5/7/2010 11:01:18 AM

shaggy gets a hard no for the most peculiar things.

5/7/2010 11:03:21 AM

^^hey now, that was forever ago. I was young, i was stupid, I have learned much since then. I am embarrassed that i said such things in the past, but I am willing to admit i was wrong.

5/7/2010 11:07:18 AM

i mean damn, why u gotta bring that up? that was pain long forgotten

5/7/2010 11:08:15 AM

ahaha u mad?

5/7/2010 12:24:06 PM

I thought gmail is where it was at. Why even make a 5th hotmail?

5/7/2010 12:52:43 PM

Quote :

"Apple opened up the APIs for this as of... last week, I think. Expect those numbers to change."

This doesn't change the fact that videos that play perfectly fine in QT or VLC or <insert app here> run like garbage on Flash, on hardware that has no video accel for decode.

5/7/2010 2:42:17 PM

Quote :

"This doesn't change the fact that videos that play perfectly fine in QT or VLC or <insert app here> run like garbage on Flash, on hardware that has no video accel for decode."

They run like garbage on your garbage OS. [/troll]

I swear this whole "OMG FLASH IS SO TERRIBLE" deal is propogated mainly by web developers who use OSX and (up until recently with this new API thing) were getting screwed both by Adobe and Apple in regards to it.

After playing around with <canvas> earlier this week and developing in Flash in the past, I can safely tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, Flash isn't going anywhere despite how much kool aid Steve Jobs tries to get Mac people to sip.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 3:22:32 PM

Microsoft hasn't even confirmed IE9 canvas support so its not worth talking about.

5/7/2010 3:25:07 PM

Quote :

"I swear this whole "OMG FLASH IS SO TERRIBLE" deal is propogated mainly by web developers who use OSX and (up until recently with this new API thing) were getting screwed both by Adobe and Apple in regards to it. After playing around with canvas earlier this week and developing in Flash in the past, I can safely tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, Flash isn't going anywhere despite how much kool aid Steve Jobs tries to get Mac people to sip."

you've been drinking a different cool-aid

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 4:18 PM. Reason : lol canvas broke my post.]

5/7/2010 4:18:24 PM

I'm just not content to completely give up on a powerful, versatile program like Flash because it happens to run like absolute shit on a certain platform.

I mean, by that logic Windows users should have completely given up on iTunes for Windows and Quicktime for Windows looooooooooong ago.

5/7/2010 4:29:58 PM

if anyone is running itunes or quicktime on windows they deserve their pain.

5/7/2010 4:30:49 PM

Quote :

"I'm just not content to completely give up on a powerful, versatile program like Flash because it happens to run like absolute shit on a certain platform."

Its a plugin. By default its absolute shit because you have to download a 3rd party plugin that isn't integrated in your OS.

And Flash sucks on windows no matter how you spin it. I've been a flash developer for years and will never go back. Flash has brought so much ugly to the web that its hard to stomach.

and no one is saying flash is dead or will soon be. We're saying its garbage and shouldn't be used for video.

But personally, if you are not running Windows you are doing it wrong. /thread

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 4:32:47 PM

isn't chrome now packaging flash into their installs?

5/7/2010 4:43:21 PM

Quote :

"I thought gmail is where it was at. Why even make a 5th hotmail?"

5/7/2010 4:57:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm just not content to completely give up on a powerful, versatile program like Flash because it happens to run like absolute shit on a certain platform. I mean, by that logic Windows users should have completely given up on iTunes for Windows and Quicktime for Windows looooooooooong ago. "

It runs like shit on every platform. And I'm not just talking about Flash video. Flash has horrific memory management problems, horrific security problems, horrific scaling, multi-threading, hardware acceleration, et al problems.

It's a SUPER shitty platform from many, many angles. It proliferated because of it's visual authoring tools. It has survived because of it's multimedia capabilities.

Writing, maintaining, deploying, testing and supporting Flash applications is the worst of every world.

5/7/2010 5:00:17 PM

^^^apparently but its not IE so it doesn't matter and not worth discussing.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 5:01:27 PM

^

5/7/2010 9:18:00 PM

Flash will be dead in a year, 2 max. All major video sites are making the switch. The better web developers for major site will switch. Flash is going to only exist in internet ghettos and web ads.

5/8/2010 11:11:41 PM

Flash is the new blink tag.

5/8/2010 11:19:03 PM

Quote :

"isn't chrome now packaging flash into their installs?"

this irritates the piss out of me, as an IT admin. one more damn thing to possibly conflict with software patches that i'm already pushing down to workstations on my domain.

5/8/2010 11:27:43 PM

Quote :

"And one thing i wonder is if there is a “bytecode” version of the HTML5 stuff that can be deployed? Because it seems some really cool things would require massive amounts of HTML, where as a compiled flash bytecode binary would be smaller to download. "

anyone know the answer to this?

5/9/2010 4:13:38 PM

that's an interesting idea, i have not heard of anything to that effect though

5/9/2010 6:04:20 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7XJI4NN7k

Looks like Flash is getting pretty smooth on current gen hardware.

5/11/2010 10:28:32 AM

I, for one, cannot wait to start draining the battery on my mobile device even faster. Thanks Adobe Flash!

5/11/2010 10:52:32 AM

^^If its not a demo of it running smoothly on IE its not worth checking out.

5/11/2010 10:57:29 AM

flash already runs smooth in IE, but it doesn't really matter since silverlight is better in every way.

5/11/2010 10:58:34 AM

You know what also will kill your battery life? Full screen games.

Better have Apple ban them from your mobile platform as well!

Or being anywhere near Liberty State Park/Ellis Island/Liberty Island; 100% -> 48% in less than 3 hours doing nothing.

Or really just being anywhere in NYC.

(This is code for: I had terrible iPhone battery life on my recent trip)

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

5/11/2010 10:58:54 AM

^^I messed that up...my bad. I meant to say:

If its not Silverlight running smooth on a mobile IE browser, its not worth discussing.

5/11/2010 11:08:02 AM