After looking into ways to call the YouTube mp4-file from within a Video for Everybody html-block (which is not possible, Google protects raw video-files using what seems to be a session-based hash that has to be provided in the URL), I decided to take another (dirty) approach; faking it!
The solution is entirely javascript-based and is as un-elegant as it is simple; create a html-file with a script include of http://futtta.be/newTube/newTube.js and a div with “id=newTube” containing a link to a YouTube-page and the script automagically takes care of the rest. Check out http://futtta.be/newTube/ to see it in action.
The result is an embedded YouTube player which will display the HTML5-version if you’re running a browser which supports mp4/h264 playback (i.e. a recent version of Chrome or Safari) and if you enrolled in the beta. If either of these preconditions aren’t met, you’ll just see the plain old Flash-player.
Don’t get your hopes up, in reality newTube is probably pretty useless (for reasons I’ll get into in a follow-up post, when I have some time to spare that is). You’ll have to wait for someone (YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, … are you listening?) to offer real embeddable html5-video (with support for both mp4/h264 and and ogg/theora).
But I did have fun creating the very first html5-capable embedded YouTube-player
Some people seemed all too happy to dismiss my post as being plain old Flash-bashing. Sorry to disappoint you, but I”m not saying Flash is evil or that it will (or should) disappear altogether. Next correction: I do have Flash player installed and in general I do know if a application is made in Flash or not. Heck, the web has been my job for more than 10 years now and Flash has been a point of interest for quite some time already. And yes, there indeed are innovative web applications and games that are build in Flash. That being said, I do think (because of accessibility, SEO and some more philosophical reasons) it’s best to avoid using Flash to develop a site’s core functionality if the same can be achieved with non-propriety, standard web technology.
It’s not about Flash vs HTML5
The comments on last week’s blogpost seemed to focus very much on the individual merits (or lack thereof) of HTML5, CSS3 or Canvas, as if these are islands with no history and no connections to the web mainland. This is, off course, wrong; these “new” technologies just happen to be the most recent evolutions of the core components of the rapidly evolving ecosystem that is the “open web”. Moreover, with HTML, CSS and Javascript being the brick and mortar, libraries such as JQuery, Dojo and YUI are the “prefab” building blocks of open web development, offering plug&play components to efficiently build cross-browser rich web interfaces. So the discussion is not about Flash vs HTML5, but about the choice between Flash and the powerful “open web technology stack”.
about:evolution
“The only constant is change” and that’s all the more valid on the web. Flash has an important role to play in this respect, having pushed the boundaries of web-based UI’s for many years. But as some of the cutting-edge features that once were only available in Flash, can now be created more efficiently using non-propriety technology, there’s a shift towards the use of those open web components (e.g. the Flash carousel on National Geographic website that was shown in the Adobe video from my previous post has been replaced by a JQuery implementation).
I believe (and that’s what the previous post was about) this trend will continue in 2010 because of features of HTML5, CSS3, canvas, … becoming available to a wider audience either natively (in new browsers) or through libraries that provide cross-browser compatible implementations. And yes, I’m afraid that in my book that means Flash will become less relevant (“irrelevant” in my previous post being an obvious hyperbole).
Despite great efforts by Adobe, Flash on the mobile web (i.e. in a browser, non-browser implementations are irrelevant in the discussion about “open web vs flash”) remains almost non-existent. The fact that Apple continues to refuse Flash for the iPhone only makes this worse, due to the seemingly untouchable “game-changer” status of their phone and due to the fact that more than 60% of all mobile pageviews originate from their mobile devices.
To sum it all up: when Adobe Flash evangelist Serge writes “Flash Player has it’s place on the web today and in the future” I can only agree. But I’ll bet you that place in the future will be less prominent than the one it holds today.
My 2nd prediction for 2010 (the first one being ‘offline is the new online‘): the glory days of Flash are over. The reason for this is twofold; the mobile web and the strong advances “open web” technology is making.
Open web moving in, fast
Remember the days when everybody wanted to spice up otherwise dull websites with “a flash splash page” and “flash menu’s”? Now menu’s are built in accessible, SEO-friendly HTML once again, using CSS to add style and even behavior, adding some Javascript if magic dust is required . And splash pages, well, those were pretty useless to begin with. Adobe Flash’s stronghold now is video playback and animation, but they’re bound to eventually lose that battle as well.
HTML5’s canvas (cross-browser javascript-able 2D bitmap-based graphics) is gaining a lot of momentum. Check out the applications and games on http://www.canvasdemos.com/ to see just how much can be accomplished now, in today’s browsers (really, go check out those demo’s, some are mind-boggling)
Adobe’s answer; mobile banners & deploy to Appstore
So with a Flash-less mobile web and with strong browser-native competition for both multimedia and graphics on the “normal” web, how does Adobe see it’s future? Well, they plan to roll out “iPhone packager for Flash” in CS5, allowing any Flash developer to publish to the AppStore, but there’s still no news about in-browser Flash on the iPhone.
For non-Apple devices, Adobe is boasting a preview version of Flash 10.1 in a mobile browser (the Android 2.0 browser on Google Nexus One in this case) with this promo video;
I don’t know about you, but somehow a sub-par game, web video and banners don’t convince that Flash has a bright future ahead. Not on mobile and maybe even not on the open web as it’s shaping up to be.
But maybe you think Flash will remain in the spotlights despite all of this? Why? Let us know in the comments!
Uw job als (front-end) webdeveloper (of tester) wordt er door de grotere concurrentie tussen browsers niet eenvoudiger op. Ge zult niet alleen moeten ontwikkelen voor Internet Explorer (het nieuwe IE8, maar ook nog altijd voor het verwenste MSIE6 en voor versie 7 natuurlijk) en Firefox, maar ook voor Safari en Google Chrome. Samen zullen deze Webkit-gebaseerde browsers eind 2009 immers tot 15% van de browsermarkt pakken (nu al 9%), tegenover 25% voor Firefox (nu 21%) en pakweg 60% voor (MS)IE (nu nog 68%). Gelukkig zult ge wel iets meer kunnen terugvallen op standaarden (MSIE6 buiten beschouwing gelaten) en zullen componenten als JQuery, YUI of Dojo uw cross-browser inspanningen blijvend verlichten.
Bling-developers mogen die dure cursussen Silverlight en JavaFX annuleren, Adobe blijft immers oppermachtig met Flash en -ondanks de gigantische hype in 2008 in veel mindere mate- met het nauw verwante Flex. 2009 zal overigens niet het jaar van Flash op mobile zijn. Een volwaardige versie van Flash voor GSM’s zal immers pas op het einde van het jaar uitkomen en zal dan nog enkel vlot werken op smartphones met ARM Cortex gebaseerde processoren, die nu ook nog niet te koop zijn.
Webagencies staan voor een belangrijke uitdaging; “mobiel internet” groeit (mede dankzij krachtige Webkit-gebaseerde mobile browsers) zowel aan vraag- als aanbodkant en kosten-bewuste klanten zullen convergentie tussen hun mobiele en hun “gewone” website hoog op het verlanglijstje hebben staan. Mobiel web wordt dé groeipool, ge kunt dus maar beter mee zijn, zowel functioneel (“mobile usability“) als technisch (er is meer dan Mobile Safari, niet iedereen heeft een uitgebreid toetsenbord en device-dependant rendering is een moving target).
En voor een recessie tenslotte, heb ik in 2009 echt geen tijd. U ook niet, toch?
Firefox 3.1 is just around the corner and I’ve been using the beta’s for a couple of months now, but I didn’t really feel the urge to write about it up until now. But with things heating up between Google Chrome (already out of beta!), Safari and Firefox and with new versions of MS Internet Explorer and Opera in the making as well, one can’t really stay indifferent I guess?
and lots of smaller changes, such as selective tab restore after crashing (so you can kill the culprit which crashed your session), the possibility to move a tab to a new window, support for the “defer”-attribute in the script element, clickable hyperlinks in the source view, …
So if FF3.1 performs that great in Sunspider, does it really feel that much faster as well? To be honest; it doesn’t. Or at least, it didn’t, at first. But here’s a tip; if you’re a bit like me you’re bound to have a lot of extensions installed (and disabled and uninstalled and not compatible and …), you might have some forgotten tweak in your about:config and you probably have huge history and bookmark-databases. In that case do yourself a favor and start from scratch with a new profile and Firefox 3.1 will truly fly.
Off course not all is perfect. I don’t like the fact that tabs inadvertently get moved to a window of their own regularly. And Flash still crashes FF all too often, Firefox really needs something like the process isolation in Google Chrome and MS IE8’s loosely coupled IE, but that might be more than just a small CR.
All in all, with Firefox 3.1 the Mozilla-folks seem to have almost everything to fight the new kid in town. You can download the latest beta here and test for yourself. Let those browser-wars rage!
With all the discussions about the place of Flash on the ever-evolving web and the excitement following Google’s announcement about YouTube going HTML5, one would almost forget that YouTube is only at the very start of their “open video” endeavor. The limitations of the current implementations are numerous; there’s no OGG (damn), no ads (yeah!) and no embedding either (damn) for example.
