Jhonsa writes, “I think that HTML5 does amount to a real threat to Adobe over the long-term. But all the same, I think anyone expecting it to do serious damage to Flash’s market position over the next couple of years is in for a serious disappointment, for three reasons.”
MacDailyNews Take: Nobody in their right mind thinks Flash will be abandoned over the next couple of years. But, its use will diminish if Apple continues to release products that sell in the tens of millions annually and that do not support Flash. The fact is that Apple’s market share is dominating among people who have meaningful discretionary income and who’ve proven they’ll spend it. This means that if you want your videos, websites, and ads seen and used by people with money to spend and the will to spend it, then you must stop using Flash. Have a nice afternoon, Adobe execs.
Jhonsa’s three reasons:
1. HTML5 is a work in progress
2. Licensing issues remain thorny
3. Old browsers die hard: There are just going to be far too many users out there running older web browsers that don’t support HTML5
MacDailyNews Take: #1 is obvious; and, by the way, everything is a work in progress, #2 is overblown (not nearly as “thorny” as Jhonsa attempts to make the issues out to be, and #3 gets fixed as soon as the luddites start hitting things they really want to see, but can’t. Time to download a new/update your old browser. (And, yes, Jobs should set up a shell company to buy major porn sites and switch them from Flash to HTML5, if he wants to hasten the Flash’s inevitable decline.)
Jhonsa continues, “A day will come when Adobe’s Flash business faces a credible challenge from the adoption of HTML5. But there’s no need for Adobe investors to act as if that day is just around the corner.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: If you’re an Adobe investor, you’ve got more problems than worrying about where Flash is going: 48 months ago, a share of Adobe (ADBE) went for around $43; today it’s just $35.
MacDailyNews Note: Note to advertisers (including those who advertise via third-party ad networks and become, in effect, our advertisers): Your Flash-based ads are no longer reaching the most well-heeled customers online: iPhone owners. They’re also not hitting iPod touch users. And, very soon, iPad users won’t be seeing them, either. If you care about reaching people with discretionary income, you might want to consider dumping your flash-based ads and moving to a more open format that people with money and the will to spend it can actually see.
Help kill Adobe’s Flash:
• Ask CNBC to offer HTML5 video via the customer support web form here.
• Contact Hulu and ask them to offer HTML5 video via email:
• Ask ESPN360 to offer HTML5 video instead Flash via their feedback page here.
• Join YouTube’s HTML5 beta here.
• On Vimeo, click the “Switch to HTML5 player” link below any video.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “iWill” for the heads up.]
@Ubermac
“Adobe are a bunch of lazy jerks, raking in the money for doing nothing for a decade, while treating the Mac platform like the ugly step daughter. “
Having used Adobe products for more than a decade and a owner of CS4 premium I have to agree. For example no 64 bit photoshop yet, using Carbon for years instead of Cocoa, dumbing down apps to be ‘equal’ to Windows versions. Steve Jobs was polite when he said they were lazy. Long time mac graphic users are mad at Adobe because we made Adobe, Illustrator etc were originally Mac only. We gave Adobe the financial strength to compete with Corel etc when they went Windows.
@Lurker. Most people use Click-to-Flash BECAUSE THEY NEED FLASH – and I suspect you do too.
… I mean, otherwise, it’s much simpler, and a more efficient use of cpu resources, just to remove the Flash Plug-In!
I use Click2Flash because I want to choose when to deal with problems of Flash, and it’s NOT for ADS! I find that I’m clicking to use Flash less and less, since most of the uses of Flash are for things which I don’t need to see.
Flash will need to go or adapt. It needs to deal with non-mouse based modes of input, and not be such a processor and power hog.
Adobe is a mud hut. Somebody’s brother lives in one in Kenya.
Using Click2Flash is just like using Bootcamp on a Mac. It’s stop gap, to help people as they transition away the crappy technology they are used to.
“Mud hut?” That kind of comment could only come from an a**hole. Wearing a white sheet. And drooling, mindlessly.
Some of the negative comments lately regarding MDN’s Apple-centric take on things are bordering on asinine. (Yes, those making the comments are free to do so, as am I free to criticize them.) The website is called MAC DAILY NEWS. At the least, what did you think you were going to get, articles raving about Microsoft? Maybe MDN is “too” pro-Apple, but I’ve spent the last 20 years having windows shoved down my throat by the media and through my daily suffering while working on archaic windows machines on the job. So, spare me the “enough about Apple” BS – it’s refreshing to have a little Macentricity. If you want neutral tech reporting, try a site without “mac” in the URL. And if you don’t pick up on the tongue-in-cheek humor, then you really are at the wrong website.
It’s interesting that everyone’s crystal ball shows them a future based on their prejudices.
Its also interesting how little the Kill Flash crowd cares about the accessibility of other people’s work. Plugin based content has been on the Web for 14 years and a lot of it is unlikely to be replaced. I’m talking about the work of educators, animators, graphic artists, cartoonists, and so on who don’t have the time or inclination to go back and redo everything.
And why should they? The Object tag is still part of HTML 5. If it isn’t supported on the iPhone OS then the iPhone OS and its mobile browser are not fully HTML 5 compliant.
Finally, did it ever occur to anyone that calling out Adobe in this way may actually help them as they ship Flash Player 10.1? Apple has turned Adobe’s work with other mobile device providers into a marketing win for Adobe and helped produce an unexpected level of cooperation between Adobe, Google, Microsoft, ARM, HTC, Intel, NVidia and others. Who would have thought that would happen a few years ago? Imagine you work at Motley Fool and you’ve heard Apple evangelists say Flash can’t work well on mobile devices. Then they see it working effectively on Android phones and on tablets from HP and Dell. Who are they going to believe?
Steve bills the iPad as the ultimate internet device…this is where the problem arises, it is not, nor can it be without supporting the millions of web sites that rely on Flash, as crappy as Flash may be, it’s extremely prevalent.
I have a 15″ macbook pro sitting on my coffee table, it is used every night by myself and my wife for simple internet browsing, I very much wanted to replace this with an iPad, I can deal with the loss of Flash, but some of her main browsing sites do not support it..
not so ultimate
damn we need an edit function, most of her websites are full flash, that nixes half of the point of me purchasing a iPad, so will probably not replace the Macbook Pro….sadly, to much machine for just web browsing
To Andreeccm,
The thing is that most people are NOT tech dudes. They listed to what ever drivel they hear and go from there.
More memory, must be good, faster processor, must be fast…. anything else is beyond them. Apple uses some class and makes the commercials fun and informative.
To Erk,
“I have a 15″ macbook pro sitting on my coffee table, it is used every night by myself and my wife for simple internet browsing,”
Yea but the MacBook plays HTML5 too. And Steves says that Flash is the cause of many system crashes. I think I can agree to that. So, sitback, enjoy the web and enjoy your iPads when they arrive.
Just a thought,
en
MDN’s comment about stock price is incorrect and somewhat foolish. 48 months ago, according to WSJ/bigcharts.com, on March 16, 2006, Adobe’s stock closed at $35.93, trading in the range 35.91-37.35 on a volume of 6,439,100 shares. This is mere pennies from where it is now.
Indeed, there was a more recent period when Adobe’s price hovered around $45, but then we had this teeny little market correction you may have read about.
In the past year, Adobe has gained about 85%, outperforming the NASDAQ composite which is up 60%.
MDN’s comment about stock price is incorrect and somewhat foolish. 48 months ago, according to WSJ/bigcharts.com, on March 16, 2006, Adobe’s stock closed at $35.93, trading in the range 35.91-37.35 on a volume of 6,439,100 shares. This is mere pennies from where it is now.
Indeed, there was a more recent period when Adobe’s price hovered around $45, but then we had this teeny little market correction you may have read about.
In the past year, Adobe has gained about 85%, outperforming the NASDAQ composite which is up 60%.
MDN’s comment about stock price is incorrect and somewhat foolish. 48 months ago, according to WSJ/bigcharts.com, on March 16, 2006, Adobe’s stock closed at $35.93, trading in the range 35.91-37.35 on a volume of 6,439,100 shares. This is mere pennies from where it is now.
Indeed, there was a more recent period when Adobe’s price hovered around $45, but then we had this teeny little market correction you may have read about.
In the past year, Adobe has gained about 85%, outperforming the NASDAQ composite which is up 60%.
MDN’s comment about stock price is incorrect and somewhat foolish. 48 months ago, according to WSJ/bigcharts.com, on March 16, 2006, Adobe’s stock closed at $35.93, trading in the range 35.91-37.35 on a volume of 6,439,100 shares. This is mere pennies from where it is now.
Indeed, there was a more recent period when Adobe’s price hovered around $45, but then we had this teeny little market correction you may have read about.
In the past year, Adobe has gained about 85%, outperforming the NASDAQ composite which is up 60%.
MDN’s comment about stock price is incorrect and somewhat foolish. 48 months ago, according to WSJ/bigcharts.com, on March 16, 2006, Adobe’s stock closed at $35.93, trading in the range 35.91-37.35 on a volume of 6,439,100 shares. This is mere pennies from where it is now.
Indeed, there was a more recent period when Adobe’s price hovered around $45, but then we had this teeny little market correction you may have read about.
In the past year, Adobe has gained about 85%, outperforming the NASDAQ composite which is up 60%.
MDN’s comment about stock price is incorrect and somewhat foolish. 48 months ago, according to WSJ/bigcharts.com, on March 16, 2006, Adobe’s stock closed at $35.93, trading in the range 35.91-37.35 on a volume of 6,439,100 shares. This is mere pennies from where it is now.
Indeed, there was a more recent period when Adobe’s price hovered around $45, but then we had this teeny little market correction you may have read about.
In the past year, Adobe has gained about 85%, outperforming the NASDAQ composite which is up 60%.