Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonist
Jobs reportedly said the Journal would find "It's trivial to create video in H.264" instead of Flash. Depending on how the Journal handled the video conversion, that could be true, and for the moment H. 264 is a cheap and effective way to distribute Web video. But we assume Jobs didn't mention that H. 264 is patented, privately licensed and could get expensive fast.
|
What would the problem be with that? Licenses never stopped MP3 and divx.
And it "could" get expensive. It could also get cheap.
Quote:
|
That's just not right; even assuming the Journal could duplicate its Flash slideshows, infographics and other news apps using iPad-friendly technologies like Javascript, it would take a decidedly nontrivial amount of time and effort to create or acquire such a system, hire staff who understand it as well as Flash, train staff on how to use it, and integrate it into the Journal's editorial workflow. ....
|
If it isn't for video, flash would never stayed alive long. All the crusades online to ban flash usage as "design element in a website" are there for a reason.
90% of the flash-animations used, are perfectly replaceable by
unobtrusive usage of javascript.
A professional (as in: wants to make lotsa money) website would do good to ditch flash as design element anyway. If getting bad SE-rankings due to bad indexing doesn't convince them, maybe a not working site on apple machines would.
Quote:
|
Jobs's bigger fib might be his description of ditching Flash as "trivial." It's not. While HTML5 is good, it's not great—yet. And even when it becomes great, it'll take major sites years to make the switch—however long it takes for the majority of internet users to stop using outmoded browsers. And that won't be for a very long time. Certainly longer than the first few generations of the iPad...."
|
The cry for HTML5 is mainly for embedding video. The other "fun" features of flash, doesn't need flash.
Not even games:
http://www.webresourcesdepot.com/25-...d-inspiration/