![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why do we not have a Comparison of Hyena and Cheeta" article? Or Jam vs Marmalade? Or any number of comparisons? We do not. We have articles on each thing.
Additionally, this article is biased.
I am removing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.44.182 ( talk) 18:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As C++ support is listed under HTML5 with Chrome I have some objections.
Are Google NaCl really to be considered HTML5?
If so that means that nearly all features can be implemented using NaCl and many cells should be modified to reflect that. For example many more graphic effects are possible, antialiasing, and even execution of dotnet applications using NaCl:s port of Mono.
Lambiam posted an excellent list of sources in this article's deletion discussion. Take a look! -- Pnm ( talk) 05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I requested a quote from the Lynda.com citation, which is cited to make four substantive claims:
-- Pnm ( talk) 02:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The article quotes Brian Chen:
Because this quote is heavy in opinion, analysis, and POV – in other words, unbalanced – I think it's best to summarize the author's factual statements and use a short quote to capture the tone of the source. Including the full quote compromises the article's neutral POV.
I replaced the text with this, which was reverted:
The edit summary says I removed the most important part. What part is that? -- Pnm ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have two concerns about this edit.
One of the main reasons to use HTML5 over Flash is SVG, and not merely video as claimed! We need to mention this fact - it should really make up about 50% of the comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.100 ( talk) 09:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says "The standard currently contains bugs" which includes a link to the W3C bug tracking system. The W3C uses Bugzilla for "bug, project, and issue tracking," but there's no evidence that it calls these entries "bugs." Is there a reference to a reliable primary or secondary source which states this directly? -- Pnm ( talk) 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have done extensive work to clean out opinion from the article. However, the user "Best Dog Ever" has engaged in an edit war, undoing all my work claiming that the previous content was fact, not opinion. I therefore submit that my changes be reviewed by other users and that the article be protected to ensure that irrelevant and blatant opinion isn't injected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunpramanik ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have many problems with Varunpramanik's recent edits to the article. First, most of the material added in Varunpramanik's edits was uncited. Second, he removed many cited facts for no apparent reason other than they were "editorial." They are valuable in understanding the debate, but he removed them anyway. Other edits just didn't improve anything, like replacing "According to Adobe" with "Adobe claims" and the addition of this phrase, "However, Adobe has not described what implementation these web sites and enterprises use of Flash technology and the degree of dependence of the web sites and enterprises on Flash technology." I'm not sure what that phrase means, exactly, but even if I did, I wouldn't have learned anything. No one would have.
In addition, he added this blatantly untrue and uncited statement:
In addition, Apple has noted that the primary reason for crashes on the Mac is the Flash Player, and that while Adobe has worked with Apple to try to resolve some of these issues, they have yet to deliver a high performance, low power consuming and stable version of the Flash Player for Mac OS X.
Ridiculous and untrue. Flash Player 10.1 did, in fact, improve performance, as noted by numerous third parties. He also removed my notes about Adobe authoring tools and the Flash Packager for the iPhone, without any valid reason.
For these reasons, I have taken the highly-unusual step of reverting all of his edits. Yes. I cannot find a single valid change in any of his edits.-- Best Dog Ever ( talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
apparently, someone thought that the performance section is not neutral enough. but I don’t see any discussion here on the talk page about it, so I suggest to remove it – i don’t have any sources that are more “trusted” than the current one, but it’s hard to cite the rage of countless users in almost as many bug trackers and forums all over the place – Flying sheep ( talk) 20:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a proof of infeasibility of DRM in open standards. Unfortunately, it was replaced by a text which claims the opposite. Fortunately, the new text refers to a clarifying source: While there is no DRM in the HTML spec, implementation ≠ spec, especially for codecs, which the spec does not cover. Thus, DRM is feasible. Not in the HTML spec, but in implementations of either HTML or codecs. This has nothing to do with my point, that there is no way to have an openly standardised (and thereby interoperable), yet effective, DRM scheme.
Before declaring yet another edit war, let's clarify my point with an example: CompanyX wants to develop a DRM scheme that only permits watching a video in the browser, but not saving it. Okay, CompanyX develops BrowserX (might as well be a plugin), that will play the video but lacks a "Save" option. Mission accomplished. Obviously, they need to plug some security holes for this DRM scheme to become effective. For one, the user might just grab the video URL from the HTML source. Okay, they develop ProtocolX, a secret protocol between ServerX and BrowserX for transmitting video. This is not going to be interoperable as long as CompanyX keeps the secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.30.119 ( talk) 14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I reverted this edit which removed this text from the article:
This is the page in the source which makes this assertion. I think this qualifies as a reliable source.
The WP:YESPOV section of Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy advises editors to avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Saying Adobe's tools are expensive seems like a straightforward assertion of fact, not an opinion, despite the implicit comparison. It's like saying an Aston-Martin is an expensive car. Scientific proof is not necessary. That Adobe's tools are more expensive seems a simple assertion of fact.
WP:YESPOV also says to avoid stating opinions as facts. This is the direct quote from the source:
If this is indeed a statement of opinion, we could rewrite the sentence by saying "According to one analyst, constructing Flash websites... is relatively easier..." If it's a statement of fact it should stay the way it is. A third option would be to find another source which makes the point in a different way.
Responding to the comment that the statement is biased, the best way to fix that would be to balance the statement with a different perspective from another source. The neutral point of view policy gives a lot of background. -- Pnm ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that this article has balance issues. I think that indicates a need to expand the article with sources that help create a neutral POV, not to rewrite it per se.
However, the Afd closer noted that there was a consensus to rewrite. Would those who felt that way articulate what you're trying to address with a rewrite? -- Pnm ( talk) 02:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It is another wikientry created by an Apple-tard of the kind "Apple versus the world".
First, i don't find the comparison, aka a simple table that show what some is capable and what is the other unable to do it.
-- 190.21.121.201 ( talk) 15:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)-- 190.21.121.201 ( talk) 15:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:14.5px">This doesn't work.</span>
Thanks.— Best Dog Ever ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, to add to the second point, you can specify, while authoring, the anti-aliasing mode of the text. In contrast, HTML and CSS do not provide any technique to accomplish that. It is up to each browser to handle anti-aliasing for all sites. Consequently, HTML text looks more jagged than Flash text, in my experience.— Best Dog Ever ( talk) 14:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Making the article virtually just comparison tables (as with other comparison articles/tables) would simplify things considerably; but it won't, for example, make Flash more cross platform than any of HTML/SVG/CSS. ¦ Reisio ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I see we have a whole section that is an uncritical report of a speech given at 'Adobe Max' last year. This is not how WP:NPOV works. Even I can see that most of what Mr. Asseo said was predicated on the false premise that HTML5 was always going to be implemented differently on every browser. The whole point of the long lead time on the HTML5 recommendation is so that the spec, when released, is implemented identically in every conforming browser - including error handling etc. If no one else in the industry has commented on this sales speech of Mr. Asseo, then per WP:DUE, "it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true [that he made it] or not". If people have picked up on the fallacy that he based his argument on, and written about it, we need their rebuttals in this section. Which is it going to be? -- Nigelj ( talk) 19:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I decided to ask before making this edit. The line: "Another reason for poor Flash performance is that some Flash developers incorrectly code their Flash files which can be a problem with "HTML5" animations as well." Is, to my taste _poorly_ worded :). "Poor" is a strictly subjective evaluation. The performance may be poor compared to some other performance for comparable task. It would make sense to say that the performance observed on Linux is often worse then that of the Windows player, at times and at particular tasks the Flash player running in Wine will outperform the dedicated Linux player. Unfortunately, I have no other means of confirming this information but measuring it myself, so it's not important if it is mentioned. My another issue with this line is that it is stating something too obvious: programmers make programming errors, which, beside other things, impact performance. This has been happeneing since the first programs were written, not sure why would anyone need to mention that programmers writing Flash and HTML are no exception to this rule.
So, I would suggest an edit: "Users of UNIX-like platforms, where Flash player is available, often claimed poor performance, compared to the Flash player runnin on Microsoft Windows" And here's some quote from Kevin Lynch (Adobe Flash platform CTO) http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02/adobe_cto_talks_flash_performance_on_macs.html where he says that historically Flash player was faster on identical hardware running Microsoft Windows, then it was on Macs.
It may be safe to extrapolate this to Linux, and I would suggest that the primary problem is the amount of testing done, not the platform strong or weak sides. 79.179.217.222 ( talk) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I've extensively reworked the Adobe Flash Player article being an expert on the subject. See the sections "Architecture" and "Development tools" for examples of my work. I'm considering cleaning up the mess that the Flash-related articles currently are.
So, I'm considering merging the content of this highly controversial article with either:
If this is fine with everybody I'll move on to doing it. Any arguments for/against this should be made now. Thank you. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 13:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The comparison table at the bottom of the article is skewed in favor of Flash making no mentions of competing technologies in the HTML platform. I'll improve this also. (JPG, BMP, PNG, Animated GIF support, SVG support in some browsers, WebM video support etc) -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 13:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
if a Flash movie is set to repeat indefinitely, this can cause a screen reader to repeat the content endlessly.
Captain Obvious ( talk) 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If an HTML5 app is made to repeat indefinitely, this can cause a screen reader to repeat the content endlessly, as well. Only it's a lot harder to 'filter' HTML5/Javascript with some kind of 'flash blocker' for unwanted trash. At least, not without 'crashing' the site. Soon 'Click the monkey! Click the monkey! Click the monkey! ...' ads will be un-stoppable.
Evildave ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As someone who uses both Flash AND HTML5, the bigger difference between Flash and HTML5 is that there is (give or take) ONE current version of Flash for all of the browsers that support it, and many, many implemented versions of javascript, CSS, and the other HTML5 application feature relevant to 'competing' with flash, and versions of those browsers that can't be upgraded, on all kinds of devices, so you end up even having to test 'old' devices and browser versions against your app.
One 'Flash' (and AIR) applet, versus (OS Platforms x Browsers x 'Browser versions' x devices). Basically the HTML5 'math' for how many ways you have to test what you do is complex, and complicated by people who don't understand this, and insist on it running on 'everything', or insist on a certain subset of devices, then change their minds as you go. Any which way you do the math, you end up with an uncomfortably large stack of things you 'should have' tested it on, but couldn't possibly test it on, and the results of that testing will be rendered moot as new browser/os/devices daily sprinkle into the marketplace, like so much radioactive fallout for your application.
While you can knock out a Flash app in a day, and then 'port' it to HTML5 in another, it literally takes 'middleware' to keep only the most major the browsers working with HTML5 (plus lots of labor-intensive testing), and 'forever' to keep up with every kind of browser breaking your applet, as every one of them changes, over time.
Audio on Android is a joke on anyone who is trying to make a 'multimedia' app, or game. They're still bickering over whether 'MP3' belongs in the standard, so some don't have that, and some don't have ogg. 'WAV' is in the standard, but Microsoft doesn't implement it in their own IE, because 'wav' is not a standard, it's a conglomeration of 10,000 un-supportable codecs. Video is similarly troubled. Font handling in CANVAS is a horror show. CSS handling for tablet orientation, and even identifying a 'handheld' is a sick joke, and not implemented on iOS/Android.
Actionscript has type safety, and compile time error checking. Javascript runs what you have, meaning you need a LOT of testing for the runtime, just to catch 'typos' and other errors, or changes in API/libraries that the compiler should have given to you a list of, in a second.
Many see HTML5 as a 'way around' app stores, including the people who maintain the browsers, whose pay is dependent on the app stores. There is a big conflict of interest here. So, yes, you can get your 'app' working on an iOS or Android tablet or phone. But it's in Apple's and Google's and Microsoft's best interest to make this infuriatingly difficult and expensive, versus a 'native' app.
You could also have exported a native app from Flash/AIR. You can just export a native iOS or an Android application from the IDE. It's pretty easy.
As a rule of thumb, if it's simple, and not very interactive, and doesn't need app triggered sound, HTML5 will be great. Certainly their 'Audio' and 'Video' handling are excellent for non-interactive, or semi-interactive media playback, as long as you don't mind exporting multiple versions of all of your media, hoping the browser will play at least one of them.
If it's complex, like a whole game, then Flash or Unity is a better platform. You will get much more consistent results, in much less time, with a lot less breakage on ever-changing browsers than HTML5 app. Because the plugin, based on one code base, works more consistently across platforms and browsers. Even platforms where the browser can't be upgraded, like old versions of Windows, or phones with the browser locked to the OS.
HTML5 isn't even a ratified standard W3C 2014 Plan. So literally no browser at all implements HTML5; only what they think it should be. Because there is no 'HTML5' golden standard to adhere to. It's vapor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildave ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The section Comparison > Authoring is highly outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.192.149 ( talk) 21:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the article is using the wrong term for one of the comparisons, it wants to list what format the code that is delivered to the end user device is in, not the format the content is stored in during authoring. I'd normally fix it myself, but I can't think of a good term to use instead.-- Henke37 ( talk) 21:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of HTML5 and Flash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why do we not have a Comparison of Hyena and Cheeta" article? Or Jam vs Marmalade? Or any number of comparisons? We do not. We have articles on each thing.
Additionally, this article is biased.
I am removing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.44.182 ( talk) 18:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As C++ support is listed under HTML5 with Chrome I have some objections.
Are Google NaCl really to be considered HTML5?
If so that means that nearly all features can be implemented using NaCl and many cells should be modified to reflect that. For example many more graphic effects are possible, antialiasing, and even execution of dotnet applications using NaCl:s port of Mono.
Lambiam posted an excellent list of sources in this article's deletion discussion. Take a look! -- Pnm ( talk) 05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I requested a quote from the Lynda.com citation, which is cited to make four substantive claims:
-- Pnm ( talk) 02:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The article quotes Brian Chen:
Because this quote is heavy in opinion, analysis, and POV – in other words, unbalanced – I think it's best to summarize the author's factual statements and use a short quote to capture the tone of the source. Including the full quote compromises the article's neutral POV.
I replaced the text with this, which was reverted:
The edit summary says I removed the most important part. What part is that? -- Pnm ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have two concerns about this edit.
One of the main reasons to use HTML5 over Flash is SVG, and not merely video as claimed! We need to mention this fact - it should really make up about 50% of the comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.100 ( talk) 09:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says "The standard currently contains bugs" which includes a link to the W3C bug tracking system. The W3C uses Bugzilla for "bug, project, and issue tracking," but there's no evidence that it calls these entries "bugs." Is there a reference to a reliable primary or secondary source which states this directly? -- Pnm ( talk) 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have done extensive work to clean out opinion from the article. However, the user "Best Dog Ever" has engaged in an edit war, undoing all my work claiming that the previous content was fact, not opinion. I therefore submit that my changes be reviewed by other users and that the article be protected to ensure that irrelevant and blatant opinion isn't injected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunpramanik ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have many problems with Varunpramanik's recent edits to the article. First, most of the material added in Varunpramanik's edits was uncited. Second, he removed many cited facts for no apparent reason other than they were "editorial." They are valuable in understanding the debate, but he removed them anyway. Other edits just didn't improve anything, like replacing "According to Adobe" with "Adobe claims" and the addition of this phrase, "However, Adobe has not described what implementation these web sites and enterprises use of Flash technology and the degree of dependence of the web sites and enterprises on Flash technology." I'm not sure what that phrase means, exactly, but even if I did, I wouldn't have learned anything. No one would have.
In addition, he added this blatantly untrue and uncited statement:
In addition, Apple has noted that the primary reason for crashes on the Mac is the Flash Player, and that while Adobe has worked with Apple to try to resolve some of these issues, they have yet to deliver a high performance, low power consuming and stable version of the Flash Player for Mac OS X.
Ridiculous and untrue. Flash Player 10.1 did, in fact, improve performance, as noted by numerous third parties. He also removed my notes about Adobe authoring tools and the Flash Packager for the iPhone, without any valid reason.
For these reasons, I have taken the highly-unusual step of reverting all of his edits. Yes. I cannot find a single valid change in any of his edits.-- Best Dog Ever ( talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
apparently, someone thought that the performance section is not neutral enough. but I don’t see any discussion here on the talk page about it, so I suggest to remove it – i don’t have any sources that are more “trusted” than the current one, but it’s hard to cite the rage of countless users in almost as many bug trackers and forums all over the place – Flying sheep ( talk) 20:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a proof of infeasibility of DRM in open standards. Unfortunately, it was replaced by a text which claims the opposite. Fortunately, the new text refers to a clarifying source: While there is no DRM in the HTML spec, implementation ≠ spec, especially for codecs, which the spec does not cover. Thus, DRM is feasible. Not in the HTML spec, but in implementations of either HTML or codecs. This has nothing to do with my point, that there is no way to have an openly standardised (and thereby interoperable), yet effective, DRM scheme.
Before declaring yet another edit war, let's clarify my point with an example: CompanyX wants to develop a DRM scheme that only permits watching a video in the browser, but not saving it. Okay, CompanyX develops BrowserX (might as well be a plugin), that will play the video but lacks a "Save" option. Mission accomplished. Obviously, they need to plug some security holes for this DRM scheme to become effective. For one, the user might just grab the video URL from the HTML source. Okay, they develop ProtocolX, a secret protocol between ServerX and BrowserX for transmitting video. This is not going to be interoperable as long as CompanyX keeps the secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.30.119 ( talk) 14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I reverted this edit which removed this text from the article:
This is the page in the source which makes this assertion. I think this qualifies as a reliable source.
The WP:YESPOV section of Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy advises editors to avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Saying Adobe's tools are expensive seems like a straightforward assertion of fact, not an opinion, despite the implicit comparison. It's like saying an Aston-Martin is an expensive car. Scientific proof is not necessary. That Adobe's tools are more expensive seems a simple assertion of fact.
WP:YESPOV also says to avoid stating opinions as facts. This is the direct quote from the source:
If this is indeed a statement of opinion, we could rewrite the sentence by saying "According to one analyst, constructing Flash websites... is relatively easier..." If it's a statement of fact it should stay the way it is. A third option would be to find another source which makes the point in a different way.
Responding to the comment that the statement is biased, the best way to fix that would be to balance the statement with a different perspective from another source. The neutral point of view policy gives a lot of background. -- Pnm ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that this article has balance issues. I think that indicates a need to expand the article with sources that help create a neutral POV, not to rewrite it per se.
However, the Afd closer noted that there was a consensus to rewrite. Would those who felt that way articulate what you're trying to address with a rewrite? -- Pnm ( talk) 02:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It is another wikientry created by an Apple-tard of the kind "Apple versus the world".
First, i don't find the comparison, aka a simple table that show what some is capable and what is the other unable to do it.
-- 190.21.121.201 ( talk) 15:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)-- 190.21.121.201 ( talk) 15:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:14.5px">This doesn't work.</span>
Thanks.— Best Dog Ever ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, to add to the second point, you can specify, while authoring, the anti-aliasing mode of the text. In contrast, HTML and CSS do not provide any technique to accomplish that. It is up to each browser to handle anti-aliasing for all sites. Consequently, HTML text looks more jagged than Flash text, in my experience.— Best Dog Ever ( talk) 14:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Making the article virtually just comparison tables (as with other comparison articles/tables) would simplify things considerably; but it won't, for example, make Flash more cross platform than any of HTML/SVG/CSS. ¦ Reisio ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I see we have a whole section that is an uncritical report of a speech given at 'Adobe Max' last year. This is not how WP:NPOV works. Even I can see that most of what Mr. Asseo said was predicated on the false premise that HTML5 was always going to be implemented differently on every browser. The whole point of the long lead time on the HTML5 recommendation is so that the spec, when released, is implemented identically in every conforming browser - including error handling etc. If no one else in the industry has commented on this sales speech of Mr. Asseo, then per WP:DUE, "it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true [that he made it] or not". If people have picked up on the fallacy that he based his argument on, and written about it, we need their rebuttals in this section. Which is it going to be? -- Nigelj ( talk) 19:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I decided to ask before making this edit. The line: "Another reason for poor Flash performance is that some Flash developers incorrectly code their Flash files which can be a problem with "HTML5" animations as well." Is, to my taste _poorly_ worded :). "Poor" is a strictly subjective evaluation. The performance may be poor compared to some other performance for comparable task. It would make sense to say that the performance observed on Linux is often worse then that of the Windows player, at times and at particular tasks the Flash player running in Wine will outperform the dedicated Linux player. Unfortunately, I have no other means of confirming this information but measuring it myself, so it's not important if it is mentioned. My another issue with this line is that it is stating something too obvious: programmers make programming errors, which, beside other things, impact performance. This has been happeneing since the first programs were written, not sure why would anyone need to mention that programmers writing Flash and HTML are no exception to this rule.
So, I would suggest an edit: "Users of UNIX-like platforms, where Flash player is available, often claimed poor performance, compared to the Flash player runnin on Microsoft Windows" And here's some quote from Kevin Lynch (Adobe Flash platform CTO) http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02/adobe_cto_talks_flash_performance_on_macs.html where he says that historically Flash player was faster on identical hardware running Microsoft Windows, then it was on Macs.
It may be safe to extrapolate this to Linux, and I would suggest that the primary problem is the amount of testing done, not the platform strong or weak sides. 79.179.217.222 ( talk) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I've extensively reworked the Adobe Flash Player article being an expert on the subject. See the sections "Architecture" and "Development tools" for examples of my work. I'm considering cleaning up the mess that the Flash-related articles currently are.
So, I'm considering merging the content of this highly controversial article with either:
If this is fine with everybody I'll move on to doing it. Any arguments for/against this should be made now. Thank you. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 13:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The comparison table at the bottom of the article is skewed in favor of Flash making no mentions of competing technologies in the HTML platform. I'll improve this also. (JPG, BMP, PNG, Animated GIF support, SVG support in some browsers, WebM video support etc) -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 13:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
if a Flash movie is set to repeat indefinitely, this can cause a screen reader to repeat the content endlessly.
Captain Obvious ( talk) 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If an HTML5 app is made to repeat indefinitely, this can cause a screen reader to repeat the content endlessly, as well. Only it's a lot harder to 'filter' HTML5/Javascript with some kind of 'flash blocker' for unwanted trash. At least, not without 'crashing' the site. Soon 'Click the monkey! Click the monkey! Click the monkey! ...' ads will be un-stoppable.
Evildave ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As someone who uses both Flash AND HTML5, the bigger difference between Flash and HTML5 is that there is (give or take) ONE current version of Flash for all of the browsers that support it, and many, many implemented versions of javascript, CSS, and the other HTML5 application feature relevant to 'competing' with flash, and versions of those browsers that can't be upgraded, on all kinds of devices, so you end up even having to test 'old' devices and browser versions against your app.
One 'Flash' (and AIR) applet, versus (OS Platforms x Browsers x 'Browser versions' x devices). Basically the HTML5 'math' for how many ways you have to test what you do is complex, and complicated by people who don't understand this, and insist on it running on 'everything', or insist on a certain subset of devices, then change their minds as you go. Any which way you do the math, you end up with an uncomfortably large stack of things you 'should have' tested it on, but couldn't possibly test it on, and the results of that testing will be rendered moot as new browser/os/devices daily sprinkle into the marketplace, like so much radioactive fallout for your application.
While you can knock out a Flash app in a day, and then 'port' it to HTML5 in another, it literally takes 'middleware' to keep only the most major the browsers working with HTML5 (plus lots of labor-intensive testing), and 'forever' to keep up with every kind of browser breaking your applet, as every one of them changes, over time.
Audio on Android is a joke on anyone who is trying to make a 'multimedia' app, or game. They're still bickering over whether 'MP3' belongs in the standard, so some don't have that, and some don't have ogg. 'WAV' is in the standard, but Microsoft doesn't implement it in their own IE, because 'wav' is not a standard, it's a conglomeration of 10,000 un-supportable codecs. Video is similarly troubled. Font handling in CANVAS is a horror show. CSS handling for tablet orientation, and even identifying a 'handheld' is a sick joke, and not implemented on iOS/Android.
Actionscript has type safety, and compile time error checking. Javascript runs what you have, meaning you need a LOT of testing for the runtime, just to catch 'typos' and other errors, or changes in API/libraries that the compiler should have given to you a list of, in a second.
Many see HTML5 as a 'way around' app stores, including the people who maintain the browsers, whose pay is dependent on the app stores. There is a big conflict of interest here. So, yes, you can get your 'app' working on an iOS or Android tablet or phone. But it's in Apple's and Google's and Microsoft's best interest to make this infuriatingly difficult and expensive, versus a 'native' app.
You could also have exported a native app from Flash/AIR. You can just export a native iOS or an Android application from the IDE. It's pretty easy.
As a rule of thumb, if it's simple, and not very interactive, and doesn't need app triggered sound, HTML5 will be great. Certainly their 'Audio' and 'Video' handling are excellent for non-interactive, or semi-interactive media playback, as long as you don't mind exporting multiple versions of all of your media, hoping the browser will play at least one of them.
If it's complex, like a whole game, then Flash or Unity is a better platform. You will get much more consistent results, in much less time, with a lot less breakage on ever-changing browsers than HTML5 app. Because the plugin, based on one code base, works more consistently across platforms and browsers. Even platforms where the browser can't be upgraded, like old versions of Windows, or phones with the browser locked to the OS.
HTML5 isn't even a ratified standard W3C 2014 Plan. So literally no browser at all implements HTML5; only what they think it should be. Because there is no 'HTML5' golden standard to adhere to. It's vapor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildave ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The section Comparison > Authoring is highly outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.192.149 ( talk) 21:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the article is using the wrong term for one of the comparisons, it wants to list what format the code that is delivered to the end user device is in, not the format the content is stored in during authoring. I'd normally fix it myself, but I can't think of a good term to use instead.-- Henke37 ( talk) 21:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of HTML5 and Flash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)