HTML5 vs. Flash comparison finds a few surprises, settles few debates

[R.Perez]

Think we'd all be better off if HTML5 could somehow instantly replace Flash overnight? Not necessarily, according to a set of comparisons from Jan Ozer of the Streaming Learning Center website, which found that while HTML5 did come out ahead in many respects, it wasn't exactly a clear winner.

Source Engadget

Full story:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/10/html5-vs-flash-comparison-finds-a-few-surprises-settles-few-de/


Just a side note, I don't have any interest in this fight really.

Just figured since a lot of threads in here cover this debate, that this was post worthy.

 

[t0mat0]

So the direct link is to here - the streaminglearningcenter.com article.

Using Flash over HTML5 showed >20% more usage of the CPU.

Note this was on a maxed out MBP: (3.06 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, OS 10.6.2)
(Also note that the Windows version was underpowered by comparison:
HP 8710w mobile workstation (2.2 GHz C2D with 64-bit Win 7, 2 GB RAM).

Safari performed better than Firefox or Chrome for CPU utilisation for the MBP for Flash content. (Chrome with HTML5 didn't seem to have the reduction in CPU usage that Safari did).

If it all comes back to acess to hardware acceleration - then it's Adobe's issue in not using the proper methods to get this for Macs. Flash isn't being given special priveleges to under the hood access as Gruber has pointed out.

It has to be said - because we can't put Flash onto the iPad we can't see what it would benchmark as. It's not like the iPad couldn't run Flash - there is a conscious decision not to be reliant on Adobe for software that could cause issues.

 

[EssentialParado]

I've always maintained the biggest problems with Flash is that there are many platforms Adobe can't be bothered to support; Linux support is disgustingly bad, Mac support was similar a few years ago, and good luck finding Flash support on most mobile devices out there. Most people won't realize how problematic it is to not be able to access any Flash websites, but anyone who's been in that position will likely stab you with a stick at the mere mention of Flash due to the frustration they have with Adobe.

Sure, the iPad and iPhones have Adobe pledging their support for Flash, but that's only because of the marketshare Apple commands. If everyone decided to go forward with Flash and it was put on the iPad, it would make it a very dangerous market for any newcomers. If a brand new iPad-like device came along, and you believed it was better than the iPad and perfect for you, yet it only had 1% marketshare? — Expect Adobe to not bother supporting it. At which point I think you'd very quickly see the virtues of HTML5.

Because with HTML 5, anyone, and any platform can use it because it's an open standard, and anyone or any company can feel free to knock up a HTML5 browser without having to rely on support from some other company.


And let us not forget Flash's penchant for regularly crashing…

 

[samcraig]

The biggest bug - which was documented on the net with even a website to prove its existence is currently being fixed as per adobe.

And I'm all for HTML5. But the adoption rate by browsers and websites is going to take a long time. Which means that for awhile, those people who wish to view those sites are stuck if they go the iPad route.

If I had to generalize, I would say people buy technologies on what it can do today, not what it might be able to do in the future. Which is why there WILL be people pissed off/etc that they can't go to flash sites. That's all. There's nothing to argue here. Some people won't care and understand why. Some people are going to either suck it up and grumble about the limitations after they get one and/or they will complain to Apple and either suck it up or return the device as its not something they can use the way they want.

Does that mean the iPad won't sell? No. And I am not implying anything of the like.

But to say it doesn't matter and that the average consumer won't care OR that if flash ate up their battery/slowed performance they'd complain is a bit silly. The average consumer who so many of you like to peg as naive/stupid/ignorant will only know that they can't do what they want. And that COULD give them buyer's remorse. Time will tell

 

[Bytor65]

Why doesn't Apple support HTML 5, H.264 video in Windows. If they want to promote an alternate standard they should support it.

HTML video isn't going to catch on if you can't play it on the PC.

AFAIK in windows, HTML 5 H.264 playback:

Opera: No
Safari: No
IE: No
Firefox: No
Chrome: Yes.

But I don't like Call Home Chrome, so as a PC user, I can watch HTML 5, H.264 video.

So HTML 5, H.264 has a significant problem making serious inroads. I understand the reason why FF/Opera don't support H.264, but Apple??

 

[EssentialParado]

Bytor, I'm pretty certain Safari on PC supports HTML 5 video.

But to say it doesn't matter and that the average consumer won't care OR that if flash ate up their battery/slowed performance they'd complain is a bit silly. The average consumer who so many of you like to peg as naive/stupid/ignorant will only know that they can't do what they want. And that COULD give them buyer's remorse. Time will tell

I don't think anyone's saying there won't be complaints, I think the main argument myself and others are making is that Apple have done the right thing to not include Flash in the iPad.

 

[Bytor65]

Bytor, I'm pretty certain Safari on PC supports HTML 5 video.

I tried it before and it didn't work for me. Only Chrome would play the HTML 5 videos on youtube/vimeo for me.