Youtube might prefer Flash but advertisers jump on HTML5

Glow Interactive claims that it is the first company to produce an in-browser, rich media advertisement that is compatible with the iOS platform. Recent news has suggested that HTML5 is not quite ready for prime time, but due to the absence of Flash on Apple's mobile platform, companies have been unable to dip into the typically lucrative content-ad market.

Glow Interactive, its NBC-owned partner "Syfy", and the New York Times, have entered a multi-party advertising agreement featuring HTML5 advertisements. Well known for their sci-fi and tech related programming, Syfy is gearing up to begin a new season of its most-watched program "Warehouse 13". The HTML5 advertisement, developed by Glow Interactive, features a few neat gimmicks, including slide-outs and the ability to swipe through different sections of the ad before actually viewing the series trailer; the ad runs today on NYTimes.com. [or you can check out the hosted demo here.] Overall the advertisement is very cleanly put together and is a solid showcase of the capabilities of the standard as it relates to advertisement.

This is good news for iOS users as present, and future ads can now be targeted towards those that utilize Apple's Flash-free devices. Users will be able to get their "ad-bombardment fix" on the run, over coffee, or during meetings and advertisers will no longer be restricted to Apple's in-house/in-app ad scheme, iAds.

HTML5 is ready for prime time in the advertising sphere, delivering rich, content filled ads that are truly multi-platform. Hopefully the real content will be delivered in due time as well.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

AT&T capping upload data speeds?

Next Story

AppleCare says the software update won't resolve the signal issue

18 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

My version of firefox doesn't support HTML5, so I'm hopeful that they'll all move to HTML5 ads that I can't see!

Stepping to the side subject... To get even marginal performance for many of the HTML5 features, Apple is going to have to recreate the iOS browser and by the time it can shove HTML5 content around 'well' it will be consuming as much processing as Flash.

And if they don't 'wake up' and get going on faster HTML5 their iOS and OS X will be horribly slow when browsing HTML5 sites designed for Firefox, Opera, and IE9.

The ad is quite tasteful, very well designed. Liked it. And as a bonus it doesn't need the virulent, heavy flash plugin.

I don't personally use ad blockers but I can't help but wonder if this is why advertisers would be flocking to html5. Since the ad is not using a browser plug-in, how difficult would it be to block?

Thinking about it more...I guess it's really irrelevant if the ad is written in html5 or flash. I suppose flash blockers would be circumvented though.

a what?.

most ads are javascript based, in fact the core of Google Ads uses simple javascript and plain html code.

Im start thinking that html5 is just a mumbo jumbo.

Magallanes said,
a what?.

most ads are javascript based, in fact the core of Google Ads uses simple javascript and plain html code.

Im start thinking that html5 is just a mumbo jumbo.


HTML 5 is plain old html code. HTML 5 just adds new features.

@Magallanes -

...and Google AdSense ads display normally on the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad since they have all supported JavaScript since their launch. The article you failed to read explains that now companies are designing interactive ads that don't require Flash and still let you spank the monkey.

thatguyandrew1992 said,

HTML 5 is plain old html code. HTML 5 just adds new features.

but, it is possible to do a interactive ads ("spank the monkey") without html5. In fact, i think some ads are still html3 compatible.

Would it actually cost Apple large amounts of money to support flash on mobile devices, or do they just have a problem with all the free content that they can't put into app store lockdown?

Unwonted said,
Would it actually cost Apple large amounts of money to support flash on mobile devices, or do they just have a problem with all the free content that they can't put into app store lockdown?

My money has always been on the latter.

They blame it on how power-hungry Flash is (lots of computations for rendering I guess). But its definitely the latter.