On Google, YouTube, HTML5, Adobe, and Flash
Last night Google blogged about how they were experimenting with offering some videos on YouTube that support the HTML5 video tag and the H.264 codec, and that work in Chrome and Safari. This is part of TestTube, where YouTube’s engineers test out different products without rolling them into the main YouTube experience. YouTube and Flash obviously have a deep relationship. It was Flash that helped YouTube become one of the most visited sites on the Internet, and YouTube has helped increase penetration of newer versions of Flash Player by rolling out features, like H.264 support, that required the newer Flash Player versions.
There is always an undercurrent questioning if Flash is “going away” when it comes to HTML5. But I think YouTube is actually the perfect example of Flash and HTML working together. The same day Google blogged about the TestTube project, YouTube also rolled out a new
Video on the web isn’t just about watching a clip any more. There are ways to monetize it, either with advertising or by adding ways to protect content that lets people watch something after they pay. There are accessibility issues that need to be addressed like closed-captioning support. What about being able to consume video on mobile devices that don’t support the HTML5 video tag? These are all areas that Flash has found solutions to, which has helped the growth of video on the web and provided a reference for the HTML5 groups to see what works. And while there may be some arguments over the use of the H.264 codec, having Flash add support for that codec meant that companies like Google could roll out a Flash version and an HTML5 version without having to re-encode video. Flash has made possible many of the features in HTML5 by showing how good the experience can be. And Flash will continue to innovate and provide solutions to challenges on the web before those solutions can be standardized. It will remain the best way to provide cutting-edge technology to 98% of people online.
Open standards are incredibly important to the future of the web. Adobe continues to work hard to contribute to that movement and balance that with the need for our customers and developers to be able to create next-generation content that runs the same way on every operating system and device. If Flash wasn’t providing value to people, it wouldn’t be on 98% of the world’s computers and we wouldn’t see penetration for new versions reach 80% within 6 months of release.
So congrats to YouTube on the HTML5 video work. This is good for HTML and I think there will be a lot of Adobe, Flash, and HTML5 collaboration moving forward. Flash has an important role to play by providing innovative ideas and solutions for an increasingly multi-screen and multi-platform world.
Posted in Adobe, Flash, Rich Internet Applications
January 21st, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Thanks for sharing. It will also be interesting to see how Flash and HTML5 can play together.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:41 pm
I tried Youtube on HTML5 support last night, however there are problems like movies not loaded correctly and the quality is not better than flash version (i’m using chrome beta for mac). Not like the flash player is free without problem either, but for people using low-bandwith network like me, HTML5 support option still needs improvements.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:42 am
And like it or not, the browser companies are too worried about patents to agree a common video codec. Only Flash gives you the confidence that one format will play almost everywhere.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:36 am
As HTML evolves, so too must Flash. Flash has always been the tool that’s 5 steps ahead, and gives the developer an edge on edginess. I could care less if video playback is handled by HTML 5. Have your video HTML, it’s about time, and video is just well…video. Flash Player shouldn’t be required for basic video playback. It’s 2010 and an HTML video element is still being tinkered on, that’s absolutely lame that it took so long.
I’m stoked about the progress Adobe’s made in bringing the Flash Player outside of the browser to iPhone apps (hopefully Android soon), and OS X, Linux, Windows desktop apps.
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:16 am
Imho Flash under Unix-like operating systems (especially when it comes to 64-Bit, e.g. OS X and GNU/Linux) is still very close to being unusable, has always been. It’s about time a different, FREE standard stepped in to perform at least some of the functions of flash. Being forced to rely on a monopoly’s proprietary software for actions as basic as video playback is imho completely dysfunctional.
I know I am very likely to be alone with my oppinion in your blog, still I thought it’s worth pointing out some of the downsides of flash. And that is not even talking about the security flaws and inavailability of final flash releases for 64-bit OSes (Linux and Windows).
Cheers
Max
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:31 am
@Tom Chieverton:
But the confidence of flash playing almost anywhere is certainly not due to positive aspects of flash. I agree, it is the de-facto standard atm.
Just saying, any other standard could just as easily be used, as long as it’s used consistently everywhere.
Everything that is forced onto the user by a sort of omnipresence will sooner or later play on all kinds of devices. That’s just the way things are.
And the only reason it’s flash today is the lack of alternatives, which is hopefully (and certainly) going to change eventually.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:20 pm
It is the mainstream folks who are not on this blog and don’t care what tech is required for them to see the video. FlashPlayer is free, and they could care less if it is open source, 32-bit, or hand coded by a million monkeys at a million typewriters. Flash just works and you need it to watch videos with ads (the best videos out there have them) and you need it to play Farmville or whatever the next goofy Facebook game will be. Flash will be here and be the go-to solution for rich interactivity and content for the foreseeable future. Maybe when Internet Explorer is end-of-lifed, the HTML 5 content might be ready to replace Flash’s low end functionality, but by then I will be publishing my single .fla source file to every platform I would need, be it interactive widgets on my television, my Wii, apps on your iPhone, apps on my Blackberry, or AIR apps for the desktop, as well as whatever eBook/tablet/hype monster wins out. Oh, and even then Flash will still be working for every browser and OS combination out there, even fringe groups like Linux.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I completely agree, you make a valid point. Not invalidating my point as I’d like to stress, but that wasn’t your intention anyway I believe.
It is a long way to go, and of course there are plenty of factors to take into account. Probably ranging somewhere in the top 10 there is of course the fact that, nothing is going to be ‘successful’ unless the IE supports it.
But, the fact that people don’t care about software and how it comes to being and why it gets to be used, doesn’t mean that people wouldn’t switch if there is something better. And we’re going to get there. Because flash itself, especially the flash player, has never been particularly ‘good’ in any sense. It has simply always been ‘the only thing there was / is.’
Granted, now that it is the de-facto standard it will keep that position for quite a while, just saying it didn’t get that position by being a good product. An innovative product.
I know the process is going to be slow, see how many people still use IE 6, but at some point (maybe at some point in the far future) people will hopefully opt to a better alternative. And with the current development of flash, that better alternative, is any alternative.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
in the fourth paragraph it should say “…by being a good product. If anything an innovative product.”
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Max1: “And the only reason it’s flash today is the lack of alternatives, which is hopefully (and certainly) going to change eventually.”
The reason that Flash is the main use of video on the web today, is because it worked for the majority of users. There was many plugins before Flash: RealVideo, Windows Media Player, Quicktime and most recently Silverlight. None have dominated like Flash, because none have worked flawlessly for the majority of users. HTML5 video tag has a long way to go to reach that point, assuming Microsoft eventually include the video tag in IE.
That said, Flash doesn’t work for everyone and I certainly think HTML5 video is a good fall back for those who don’t have Flash, especially in the mobile area (something that’s likely to change in 2010). As the main goal for most is not to use one solution or another but to get as many eyeballs as possible in a fashion that is easy and not to expensive to use.
One of the reasons why I don’t think HTML5 is going to completely replace Flash is the lack of features. HTML5 is close to where Flash Player 6 video was in terms of features. Full screen capabilities isn’t even part of the spec, last time I looked. With Flash Player 10.1, there’s going to be hardware decoded video for certain GPUs and I imagine that the support will grow within time. With the rate that people update browsers compared to the speed that people update plugins, plugins will always have an advantage in bringing new features to the masses quickly.
Also since Linux and Flash have been brought up, I’m surprised that none of the Linux groups have joined the Open Screen Project. Is it the still closed source nature of the project that discourages Linux contributors and/or groups? Or has perhaps Adobe not made it easy enough for someone or organizations from the Linux community to join the Open Screen Project?
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
@Matthew
Just a quick note on the alternatives you listed.
All those need alternative software to be installed. They don’t function on a simple browser plugin bases. But you’re right, I wasn’t specific enough. I didn’t count somehow browser-embedded media players as an alternative. There have always been loads of different media players, I was rather referring to a similar technology, where (before silverlight) there was only flash.
That none of the media players / media player browser plugins was going to become really dominant is obvious. Even though they are still used.
I can’t comment on the open screen project, I am (right now) not an active Linux nor anything developer, so I’ll leave this discussion to others.
There are open source flash players (I don’t know enough about the open screen project to comment), but not quite yet at a really reliably usable stage, as far as I know.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Max1, the very fact that Flash is now the standard because “of a lack of alternatives” proves it was (and still is) an innovative product. There is nothing like it out there. The authoring tool itself, where motion and art and code all get mashed together still has no alternative, does it? Flash is so much more than just video and Adobe isn’t letting it stagnate, believe me. Flash is everything that defines rich media, and Adobe is still the definitive source of designer-friendly authoring tools. Actually, that train of thought means I can predict when HTML 5 and the video tag will start to matter: When Dreamweaver supports it…
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Of course it was / is an innovation. I never said otherwise. And the fact that dreamweavr is widely used doesn’t change that. And neither said I that Adobe lets it stagnate.
That doesn’t mean that the problems I mentioned don’t exist. I agree it’s a great product, because it is / was something never seen. But again, that, imho, doesn’t particularly make it good product. That’s all im critisising.
If you’d like to add something please go ahead.
Thanks for the discussion, interesting points of view were articulated.
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
“… that doesn’t make it a particularly good product.” … “or doesn’t mean it couldn’t be a better, more satisfying product.”
I forgot to add.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:52 pm
The point would be is as long as Adobe continues to innovate, then there will always be a need for Flash and other plugins. There are plenty of places for this to go, with Flash taking on 3D content with hardware acceleration at some point in the future. HTML 5 will continue to bottom feed on Flash’s simpler functionality, but that is progress! So in the end, nothing changes, Flash and HTML continue to coexist and complement each other, which was the point of Ryan’s blog?
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:28 am
that time will have to show. so far it is an innovative product, but as always with innovative products, other vendors are catching up and want a piece of the action. so whichever other standards or pieces of software there will be, if adobe doesn’t also bear in mind the quality its product (as i said at least for some people on some platforms flash performs much mire than just poorly), there might come someone or something else taking its place. if this something was an open standard that’d be even more beneficial.
as i said, flash will indeed stick around for while, but solely due to innovation. and, i have said thisbefore as well, not because it is a good product. it can certainlyuse improvement.
if at some point there is some sort of competition, that almost anybody can use (which excludes silverlight), and there will be a choice between flash and something, there is a chance to opt away from flash. and right now thered be plenty of reasons to switch if there was something equivalent.
but im repeating myself here. i don’t disagree with what any of you said. i only disagree with the argument that adobe and flash are a monopoly, therefore they always will be and therefore flash is a great product. at least for some people, it simply isn’t. and adobe doesn’t seem to be bothered to change that. (its been years since 64 bit OSes , and a while since they are really popular, but again ive said that before.) yes they keep innovating, but again thats not my point.
i don’t know if you use OS X or linux or solaris or something of the like. but i bet most of the users of those OSes would jump on a real alternative. (again, i agree with the argument that it works for the majority of people and that’s the market its targeted to, just saying.)
and should there really be flash for the iphone at some time, that would make my point. unix-like OS, very little cpu power (compared to PCs and macs), …
i think this discussion is over, we’ve all made our points.
January 25th, 2010 at 6:20 am
HTML 5 may not replace flash but Adobe has no one to blame but themselves.
They seem very slow at supporting 64bit. Most laptops and desktop in the pass year has being shipping with a 64 bit version or Windows and now Windows 7.
Adobe has basicly ignore it by saying since you can run 32bit they are not in a rush.
However they have a alpha 64bit support for Linux but nothing for Windows the world #1 OS 95% market.
There is no time table of when Flash 10.1 will come.
So if HTML 5 takes over then Adobe can’t blame their slow support of 64bit for the down fall of Flash.
January 26th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
It’s funny when people talk about HTML5 and the Flash Platform as if its dead in the water. By the time HTML5 is a full featured production ready specification I can’t even begin to think where the Flash Platform will be. I have nothing against HTML5. I think it’s a big step forward (and a few small steps back in regards to HTML 4.0 life support). My problem is a lack of belief that the HTML5 spec will get to fruition anytime soon. If the XHTML 1.0, and CSS2 specs couldn’t be completely implemented in all modern browsers in a decades time, I won’t be holding my breath that the HTML5/CSS3 specs will be fully implemented anytime soon.
And can you imagine if IE decides they don’t want to play the same game as everyone else? Wouldn’t be the first time MS said, “It’s my ball and I’m going home!”
I already went through this pain developing for IE and NS in the late ’90s. Flash Player is the one plugin that runs on the majority of users devices and renders interactive content most consistently across OSs, browsers and devices.
my two cents.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:08 am
Brandon – but we are already a lot closer to HTML 5 being implemented than we were with XHTML & CSS 2, with a lot of it being about ratifying features that have already been implemented (i.e. canvas was in Safari and Firefox before being accepted into the HTML 5 spec).
In fact the spec itself cannot be ratified until there are 2 implementations – this is to prevent the situation of creating an irrelevant standard.
It’s there, to some level, in all the mobile browsers that count. Equally, Microsoft now have to compete (I went past 3 billboards advertising Chrome on the way to work, emphasising it’s speed).
There’s also Google Chrome frame for IE (i.e. a plugin to render HTML 5 in the uncompliant browser) – imagine if HTML 5 pages encouraged IE users to install that, in the same way we do with Flash?
As for the pain of developing for multiple platforms – it’s back, and we’re going to have to deal with it.
It’s developers, and the companies that pay us, that want a world where everyone uses the same product.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:40 am
“That none of the media players / media player browser plugins was going to become really dominant is obvious”
I don’t think it’s that obvious, and it raises an interesting question in my mind. If Flash had started with video support, rather than adding it, would it ever have become as widespread?
The main problem with media plug-ins was that most IT departments banned their installation – they were rarely required for people’s jobs, and were a major source of security holes.
Flash was considered acceptable – and rolled out by the OS vendors too – and then grew video capability.
The other problem I see with a lot of arguments here is that they’re based around current HTML 5 implementations and current Flash implementations, as if this won’t change. Someone was saying that about Internet Explorer once, when it was new and didn’t display everything Netscape did. It got better.
The interesting issue is what the trend is.
And the other interesting question is what proprietary plug-ins and formats mean for the long-term web – there is already content out there on the web that is not actively maintained, yet locked into some early version of a Windows only plugin.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:56 am
Google Chrome Frame is a disservice to every developer out there trying to get their clients to let go of IE6.
Also I can hear the collective ‘NO’ of every corporate I.T. department when asked about allowing users to install the Chrome Frame plugin.