Interesting that the people whose business model actually rely on video distribution (Hulu, YouTube) have opinions that are the opposite of the common user consensus in Redddit or Hacker News ("Flash is dying", "HTML5 is ready", etc).
Maybe HTML 5 isn't ready for YouTube or Hulu, but for people who just want to post a video of their cat on their blog, it is a lot simpler to use the video tag than a Flash solution.
So if people want to post a video of their cat in their blog, they must encode it in 2-3 different formats, and use an HTML5 video player with a fallback to a Flash video player ... as opposed to a single video file and a single Flash player.
Unless those people who own cats are all Richard Stallman impersonators, I don't see how that makes any logical sense.
I don't know about everyone here, but I have nothing but trouble with HTML 5 video (on chrome or firefox). Either it won't play (codec issues I assume), or I can't seek while I watch. I hope it improves.
There's a distinction to be made here though. The reason it's not ready for YouTube is because HTML5 doesn't support things like content controls (e.g. DRM). Most of the videos on YouTube don't have that.
It's disingenuous to say that HTML5 isn't ready for YouTube; it's far more accurate to say that HTML5 isn't ready for content providers. I mean, I can't blame them. HTML5 video in its current state would turn YouTube Rentals into a free movie download service within minutes. Still, the core of what's being uploaded to YouTube is perfectly satisfied by HTML5's current offerings.
Perhaps what would be needed in that case is some kind of encumbered meta-format, one for which codecs could be installed on the local system that would provide the 'content protection' that copyright holders want so badly, without needing Flash as a bloated overlay. It wouldn't be much better than Flash, but it would be a start.
1) Write something is so unfathomable wrong that prompts people to respond, correcting you.
2) Write about something that appeals to people's ideologies, and be sure to go against the most popular creed. Examples: "HTML5 is bad"; "Apple is Evil"; anything about how some aspect of programming should be done
Adding to that the fact that their clever semantics is making it sound better than it is (claiming '4x more pixels' - which is true, but it's just 2x the resolution)...
It's the best mobile device screen out there, hands down. They really don't need to do that.
This article should be renamed "the end of one-design-fits all." Or maybe, we could rename it "double your design staff."
Pretty much spot on. I don't like when people say that one change for a new kind of device will dictate how everything else will be used. Yeah, mobile devices with touchscreen capabilities are here to stay, but that doesn't mean desktops are going away. Designing for the common features between the two only is doing the users a disservice for anything that could benefit from additional UI features.
No, because Google is not /restricting/ it. They're using the advanced features, not being bouncers deciding who to let into their party or not based on the color of their shirt.
From a guy who did many of the examples for chromeexperiments.com and has been a pretty active promoter of HTML5/standards via three.js and other projects:
"I'm happy I rejected doing anything for this apple/html5 page. They should rethink their policy and give credits to the authors."
