facebook Mark Zuckerberg: Our Biggest Mistake Was Betting on HTML5

[thomastmc]

Well what are you going to gamble on.. mobile? HTML5 is already dead on that. People are going native not HTML5.

Btw, I agree with you, desktop will not last forever as well. But I wouldn't bet on building HTML5 stuff for mobile. That's a dead end if it ever was one.

So we are agreeing (along with Adobe).

Flash is dead on the browser, and HTML5 is the best solution in that arena, as Adobe states. The leftovers are AIR for mobile apps, and high-end gaming and premium video on the desktop.

I don't understand why you didn't come around sooner. After all, I did quote Adobe saying the same thing, just in greater detail.

Well what are you going to gamble on.. mobile? HTML5 is already dead on that. People are going native not HTML5.

That's going to be pretty hectic, every online presence having a mobile app and a website... More money for developers I guess. Wouldn't disappoint me.

[Boz]

So we are agreeing (along with Adobe).

Flash is dead on the browser, and HTML5 is the best solution in that arena, as Adobe states. The leftovers are AIR for mobile apps, and high-end gaming and premium video on the desktop.

I don't understand why you didn't come around sooner. After all, I did quote Adobe saying the same thing, just in greater detail.

That's such a huge hyperbole..

No.. Flash Player is not dead in a browser (and it will continue to bring revolutionary features) and won't be as long as HTML5 is a half assed solution that works on 50% of the browser and is overall terrible in pretty much everything. Which is pretty much never unless we have one browser.

The leftovers as you call them (which is mobile) are the new wave actually where HTML5 is terrible. Native apps.. and that includes building with Flash/AIR and compiling into native code.. HTML5 might be used for that by trying to package it with things like Phonegap.. which is EXACTLY what Facebook did and it's terrible.. so first choices will be pure native, second choice will be AIR.. for everything else if you don't need performance you can dabble with HTML5.

For gaming (which is basically a fairly advanced interactive application), premium video content and highly rich interactive content, Flash will continue to rule without a doubt.

So basically, there's nothing to come around on.. Flash is going to be around for a long time, HTML5 will be pushed as always for desktops as screwed up and plauged with compatibility issues as HTML/JS/CSS has always been and the rise of the mobile platform and devices will take over where native apps will rule (already rule).

and yes, Adobe will continue to improve HTML tools and invest into W3C and offer some cool solutions for CSS, but again, that's all (if it ever gets implemented by all browsers) going to work only on desktops.

That's what it is.. everything else is hyperbole.

[thomastmc]

That's such a huge hyperbole..

No.. Flash Player is not dead in a browser and won't be as long as HTML5 is a half assed solution that works on 50% of the browser and is overall terrible in pretty much everything. Which is pretty much never.

The leftovers as you call them (which is mobile) are the new wave actually where HTML5 is terrible. Native apps.. and that includes building with Flash/AIR and compiling into native code.. HTML5 might be used for that by trying to package it with things like Phonegap.. which is EXACTLY what Facebook did and it's terrible.. so first choices will be pure native, second choice will be AIR.. for everything else if you don't need performance you can dabble with HTML5.

For gaming, premium video content and highly rich interactive content, Flash will continue to rule without a doubt.

So basically, there's nothing to come around on.. Flash is going to be around for a long time, HTML5 will be pushed as always for desktops as screwed up and plauged with compatibility issues as HTML/JS/CSS has always been and the rise of the mobile platform and devices will take over where native apps will rule.

That's what it is.. everything else is hyperbole.

Because the common perception of Flash isn't as being "screwed up and (plagued) with compatibility issues", not to mention as a security risk. News flash (pun intended), it is.

HTML5 is being pushed for mobile as "the best solution", by Adobe. Flash on the desktop is being pushed as solely for high-end gaming and premium video, by Adobe. HTML5 is being pushed on the desktop as "Increasingly, rich motion graphics will be deployed directly via the browser using HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript and other modern web technologies.", by Adobe.

It's a very difficult argument to make when what should be your best ally in that argument is not on your side.

[spaceelf]

Because the common perception of Flash isn't as being "screwed up and (plagued) with compatibility issues", not to mention as a security risk. News flash (pun intended), it is.

HTML5 is being pushed for mobile as "the best solution", by Adobe. Flash on the desktop is being pushed as solely for high-end gaming and premium video, by Adobe. HTML5 is being pushed on the desktop as "Increasingly, rich motion graphics will be deployed directly via the browser using HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript and other modern web technologies.", by Adobe.

It's a very difficult argument to make when what should be your best ally in that argument is not on your side.

Flash is a proven available technology that works well. HTML5 isn't even done. I don't see why you guys feel the need to argue about this.

Adobe wants people to develop with their tools, no matter what their choice of technology. They'll push everything people want to develop for, and HTML5 is the new thing.

I'd have a hard time agreeing with either of you unless I knew what was coming up in future Flash clients. (Personally I gotta say, running high end games in Flash? I'm not interested. I don't know what anyone would get out of that.)

[Boz]

Because the common perception of Flash isn't as being "screwed up and (plagued) with compatibility issues", not to mention as a security risk. News flash (pun intended), it is.

A perception that has no connection with reality really. Flash is 100% working the same on all browsers. Security will always be an issue and Flash is no exception. Javascript and browser security holes had FAR bigger consequences than Flash plugin..

And btw, Adobe talk is PR (especially after Jobs fiasco). It's natural they have that stand in public because they bought Phonegap and Typekit. So they need to push that line as well. Obviously HTML will be around as it has for a while and Adobe is investing in better tooling for it. Not a big shocker. Whether or not it will be the BEST solution is very subjective. HTML5 is far for being best solution for anything right now.

I hope Adobe makes tools and all browsers support same feature sets and we can do things we do in Flash purely in HTML5 but that's so far fetched and dreamy that it's not realistic.

On the other hand, they are continuing to invest into Flash and performance and innovation that was brought to the recent version of Flash is simply amazing. It distanced itself from HTML5 another decade in performance, features and so on. Games, interactive applications, Flex enterprise apps, premium video.. there's ton of stuff.

[thomastmc]

So basically, there's nothing to come around on.. Flash is going to be around for a long time, HTML5 will be pushed as always for desktops as screwed up and plauged with compatibility issues as HTML/JS/CSS has always been and the rise of the mobile platform and devices will take over where native apps will rule (already rule).

So, what you're saying here is that native mobile apps will cause the demise of websites, and instead of making a website, companies will start developing mobile apps instead of websites exclusively?

Trying to fit every website into a native app, (that must be searched for, downloaded, installed, and run to be used), as well as that websites will no longer be relevant, are exceptionally audacious notions.

Some would call that "wishful thinking".

[Boz]

So, what you're saying here is that native mobile apps will cause the demise of websites, and instead of making a website, companies will start developing mobile apps instead of websites exclusively?

Trying to fit every website into a native app, (that must be searched for, downloaded, installed, and run to be used), as well as that websites will no longer be relevant, are exceptionally audacious notions.

Some would call that "wishful thinking".

Absolutely.. demise of websites on mobile. How long have we had mobile platforms and people are still not making mobile friendly sites. They make apps. And it's not me saying it.. all the major stats and reporting is basically saying, people LOVE apps, it's easy, you just get it and you tap it whenever you want to use it. It's faster, more user friendly, takes full advantage of your hardware/device capabiltiies and just fits with the native UI of the OS.

That "wishful thinking" is a reality today that is just growing more and more.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mobile-usage-and-the-winner-of-the-apps-vs-browsers-war-is-2012-7

[Xilo]

^

I'd rather use an App than have to mess with a mobile website (at least for my most used sites).

[thomastmc]

Absolutely.. demise of websites on mobile. How long have we had mobile platforms and people are still not making mobile friendly sites. They make apps. And it's not me saying it.. all the major stats and reporting is basically saying, people LOVE apps, it's easy, you just get it and you tap it whenever you want to use it. It's faster, more user friendly, takes full advantage of your hardware/device capabiltiies and just fits with the native UI of the OS.

That "wishful thinking" is a reality today that is just growing more and more.

http://www.businessi...s-war-is-2012-7

Time will tell... :laugh:

We know how Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, and Google are weighing in. But, maybe they're all just wrong too.

[thomastmc]

Absolutely.. demise of websites on mobile. How long have we had mobile platforms and people are still not making mobile friendly sites. They make apps. And it's not me saying it.. all the major stats and reporting is basically saying, people LOVE apps, it's easy, you just get it and you tap it whenever you want to use it. It's faster, more user friendly, takes full advantage of your hardware/device capabiltiies and just fits with the native UI of the OS.

That "wishful thinking" is a reality today that is just growing more and more.

http://www.businessi...s-war-is-2012-7

This text is taken from the link you posted with the graphic:

• But there is plenty of growth to go around: Even though time spent on mobile browsers is flat, audiences will still grow with increased smartphone penetration. And with certain companies are starting to offer vastly improved mobile browser options, the tides can always turn.
  

• This may not be a winner-takes-all competition: As we detail in a recent report, HTML5 web-based apps are a more promising technology long-term, and could completely change the playing field.
  

[BajiRav]

Absolutely.. demise of websites on mobile. How long have we had mobile platforms and people are still not making mobile friendly sites. They make apps. And it's not me saying it.. all the major stats and reporting is basically saying, people LOVE apps, it's easy, you just get it and you tap it whenever you want to use it. It's faster, more user friendly, takes full advantage of your hardware/device capabiltiies and just fits with the native UI of the OS.

That "wishful thinking" is a reality today that is just growing more and more.

http://www.businessi...s-war-is-2012-7

do you have a breakout of the "Apps" section where it splits native apps vs HTML5 apps? I have seen majority apps using cross platform frameworks such as Cordiva. Your comparison is pointless without breaking down the apps into native vs. HTML5 wrappers.

HTML5 is great for websites and simple apps but for complex apps such as facebook (ha!), it is not the best solution.

[remixedcat]

you know what's hell... using m.facebook.com on my phone on 3G or 1x.......

and the lack of mobile optimised sites is annoying.... vbulletin boards are the least mobile friendly forum software ever... IPB is the best.

even my blog has a mobile version...... and I'm gonna work on a new site and have a mobile friendly version as well...

one thing about mobile site vs app... apps take up space on your phone... and lower end phones like my Optimus S only have 300 some MB of usable space and on average I got like only 20-30MB free space (can't remove any apps I allready have and not all can live on the SD card) and if I open the facebook app and then open the browser my phone tells me they can't start becuase not enough space.... it's that bad, people with phones like mine can't have an app for every site that takes up like 8-12MB per site...

[threetonesun]

Absolutely.. demise of websites on mobile. How long have we had mobile platforms and people are still not making mobile friendly sites. They make apps. And it's not me saying it.. all the major stats and reporting is basically saying, people LOVE apps, it's easy, you just get it and you tap it whenever you want to use it. It's faster, more user friendly, takes full advantage of your hardware/device capabiltiies and just fits with the native UI of the OS.

That "wishful thinking" is a reality today that is just growing more and more.

http://www.businessi...s-war-is-2012-7

Minutes per month? Sure. If I load a camera app, I'm going to spend some time taking pictures. If I load a game, I'll play it for a bit.

If I go to a website, and it says "hey, download our app!", I feel like punching whoever put that stupid pop-up on in the first place. HTML 5 is fine for the mobile web. I still use Facebook mobile, because their native application is and has been a crashtastrophe on the iPhone.

For overly complex sites, sure, an app might be the way to go. For sites that can have some of their content / display offset by being offline, sure, go native. For the majority of the internet? Just make a better website.

[~Johnny]

Windows Modern UI, Windows RT, and Windows Phone 8 native apps are developed with HTML5. Microsoft even went as far as to bake JavaScript into their new runtime, WinRT, so that HTML5 applications would perform as well as C++ and C# applications.

To address this, the Windows Phone 8 SDK doesn't support HTML projects, and the native applications certainly aren't HTML based. That, and the HTML & JS framework does not have the same performance as C++ and .NET based applications.

[Rudy]

Also the fact that "hybrid" apps don't get the "full" power of the device (run the same html5 page in a wrapper app and it will be a lot slower than if you open it in Safari

[thomastmc]

To address this, the Windows Phone 8 SDK doesn't support HTML projects, and the native applications certainly aren't HTML based. That, and the HTML & JS framework does not have the same performance as C++ and .NET based applications.

Also the fact that "hybrid" apps don't get the "full" power of the device (run the same html5 page in a wrapper app and it will be a lot slower than if you open it in Safari

I was wrong about Windows Phone 8. I thought it used the same WinRT runtime as Windows 8/RT, but instead uses WinPRT.

JavaScript apps have the same direct access to the native WinRT APIs that C++ and C# have. JavaScript, C++, and C# applications all run in the same execution environment, "App Container".

Native HTML5/JavaScript apps on WinRT don't require the use of a wrapper like PhoneGap.

Of course JavaScript apps aren't going to perform highly computational operations or iterate massive loops like C++... it's not magic.