You should really learn to put forward your claims without having to resort to strawmen. Who said HTML5 was useless? No one did.

That you get better performance with video using HTML5 does little to remedy the fact that playback of video is really all you can do.

You try and seamlessly integrate video, with logic, dynamic text, vectors in HTML5 and you will be pretty disappointed.

The Flash isn't the be all end all. But what it does it does so many times better than HTML5 for quite some time.

I agree that Flash is better for many things, that the tools that support the format support greater capabilities, especially for things like access to webcam and mic hardware, and obviously 2D and extremely basic 3D interactive games and presentations, and Flash will likely be better for some or all of these things for a while longer. But I also think Flash is widely abused, with ads and other site elements doing things like playing videos or animations and consuming resources (precious on mobile devices) without user intervention, and worst of all designing entire site interfaces in Flash with no HTML fall-back. I support what Apple is doing because it really forces site operators to reevaluate how deeply they rely on Flash for their web presence, and because it drives the development of content creation tools that support HTML5 content, as well as progress in browser support. I acknowledge that it's painful to undertake a transition like this, especially as you've got clients asking why they have to pay this much more to get their content on iDevices now. But in the end, we get a more open web, which means more user control over the experience, which is a good thing for users like you and me.

Given the CPU usage of the HTML5 examples shown in the video it seems like Flash is not alone with that problem.

With regards to designing entire sites in flash. Go to thefwa.com check out some of the sites on that portal. Then tell me why you would want an HTML fallback for that? That is kind of like saying that all video should have transcription of what is being said.

Sometimes there is no substitute.

With regards to the open web argument. Since we are in agreement that Flash isn't the be all end all of the web, then what is the problem?

If HTML5 is better then it will eventually outcompete FLASH. Until it is, support both. That is what I don't understand with Apples claims.

HTML5 is right now rather resource intensive as shown in the video. It actually going to be worse for the battery life of an iPad than flash is.

It's a hollow argument.

At least any browser developer can do something about the HTML5 performance characteristics, including giving their users greater control over activation of certain elements on platforms where that may be especially critical, such as ones where you don't want to be wasting batteries on content you didn't care about seeing in the first place, like ads. Only Adobe can fix Flash's issues, and they've not done a great job so far.

As for that site you linked, you may want to find a better example. All that stuff seems relatively straightforward to implement in CSS/javascript and Canvas, and that would probably be much less painful to actually use, if possibly more effort to create. That site was a terrible experience, and a perfect example of why encouraging this kind of behavior by web developers a bad idea.

WiseWeasel, dude, you're all over the place. Like many of the "vs." crowd. I am gonna hit all of your points, so you don't Republican the debate.

ThomPete - you're a voice of reason and contemporary fact.

To the "vs." crowd: try and read all the points; not skimming and then commenting without paying the respect to do some legwork.

* ads - HTML5 ads will exist. The easier they are to make, the more of them there will be. Advertisers will use whichever has the widest audience. In fact, advertisers will be more encouraged by all the circle-jerk mob-mentality surrounding HTML5.

* video playback - for one, HTML5 doesn't play better or with less CPU. I think about 10 or so YouTube videos have proven this (visually, not blog opinion rhetoric). I'd link a few to you, but let's face it...you're not gonna look at them. You'd be forced to see proof. (If you do manage to be overcome with a neutral state of mind, do some research)

* cpu - another red herring. So far, I've not seen 1 canvas+js example (of which has a close equal to a Flash equivalent) that outperforms Flash. I wouldn't expect it to, either, since Flash is compiled and JS is interpreted. Bottomline: an immersive experience is going to take some CPU. Realize it applies to all technologies and get over it.

* ipad/mobile - Flash depletes battery. I agree. Equivalent canvas+js experiences use similar CPU. Taking that into consideration...the battery specifically hates Flash? Please.

* greater control/poor coding - Do I really need to point out that this applies to everything? Not just Flash?

Let's consider that HTML5 is being implemented in 2010. I've been on the 'net since 1995. That's 15 years for video to make its way into the browser -- without the "dreaded" plugin tech.

You know what's dreaded? Not being able to move ahead at the speed necessary to make great, immersive experiences. Being tied to a set of slow, archaically-driven, standards.

Flash (or more specifically plugin arch) is a petri dish for the web's innovative future. It can't and shouldn't die. If anything, it should become more open, more accepted and more accessible.

I'd be fine with it being open. I'm just very happy to see a vendor push website operators to not completely rely on Flash, a proprietary plugin controlled by Adobe. If Adobe were to open up the Flash runtime, I would have zero issue with it, and I'd even wager that Apple would turn themselves around on the issue. To have the entire web at the mercy of Adobe is a bit much for me to swallow. Flash is great at a few things, but websites completely reliant on it needed a swift kick in the pants.

I agree with what you're saying.

However, I am alright with a website being 100% reliant on Flash just as I am alright with a website being 100% reliant on video. The key issue here is openness, not platform.

So you actually believe that HTML5 wont be used for making ads once it's matures?

Not the site itself. What it is linking to.

There are HTML5 ads today, and they're already extremely annoying, possibly even more annoying than Flash at the moment, because they're so badly designed, often completely broken. But eventually, there will be some kind of backlash, and browser makers will block the more annoying behavior or lose ground to competitors that will. I never said the transition was going to be easy, and there's pain all around right now, but at least it's exciting, and it feels like we're finally making some progress towards a better destination. This pot needed to get stirred a bit, and that's what the HTML5 platform excels at. With the Flash platform, there is no competition, and it has drifted away from the user's control.

sorry but how do you expect browser makers to block more annoying behavior? Thats nonsense.

Regarding competition.

So your idea of competition is how apple does it by not allowing Flash on the iPad and iPhone.

That's not competition.

To give a more practical example of the benefit to users of an open standard that browsers code to versus a proprietary plugin that a single vendor controls, I can point to the fine-grained control users have over javascript. Popup-blocking is now a standard feature for browsers, and most give users the option of controlling various other features which have been abused by web developers. The way this works is one browser will support the feature allowing users to limit javascript behavior, they start stealing marketshare from the others, and then the others are forced to adopt the capability to keep up. With proprietary browser plugins, however, the content is a black box handled entirely by the plugin runtime, over which the browser has little control. The user can customize what the plugin vendor says they can customize, and there is no drive to cater to users' needs instead of content partners, as all browsers must use the same implementation of the platform. Flash is all-or-nothing, and it's what Adobe wants it to be. Web standards are piecemeal, and they are whatever the user wants them to be.