Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ
I cannot see anyone here who is saying this assertion is wrong coming up with a reason why something that costs money (flash) will beat something that doesn't (html5).
Anyone care to make a suggestion?
|
Well, I'll step up to the plate then. Yes, you're wrong.
Photoshop costs money, MS Paint does not. But you're not going to see designers flocking to MS Paint just because it's free.
And by the way, HTML 5 is still nothing more than a concept. Assuming it gets adopted as a standard someday, and factoring in the average time it takes for major changes like that to work its way into full browser integration and then on down to all the actual users, HTML 5 won't be considered any kind of a "standard" for decades. (if ever).
Macromedia created something unique with both Flash & Director (Shockwave), that rocked the world. Adobe bought them out. Flash is capable of so much more than just displaying a video to a user, just as Photoshop is capable of so much more than just cropping thumbnails.
The important part is, Flash doesn't cost the end users anything, only the Flash developers. The developers will use whatever gets the job done the fastest, best, most efficient way, on a platform that reaches the most people. Right now, (for purposes of this discussion) that's Flash, not HTML 5. And when statistics show that IE6 is STILL the most widely used browser out there, it's pretty clear that end users aren't jumping on upgrades until they are forced to.
Flash isn't going anywhere, and Adobe is not shitting any bricks.
