mlahero

Come on timber wolf!

@Jennacide

Actually its not proof of concept. This is one of the directions for Flash for the future, HTML5 is taking up (and rightly so) some of the more simple and basic things Flash has done for so long and so Flash is pushing on deeper into even more complex things. The reason why a complex 3D game in a browser is a good idea is simple; it's easy to get to. You would no longer be tied down to a console, or a PC where you have installed a game, you'd just log in to your gaming website and play through the browser.

Unity has also jumped on the Flash 11 wagon, and full Nintendo Wii games have already been successfully converted to run with Flash.

As for "HTML5 can already do this" that is untrue. HTML5 can do SOME of the things that Flash can do but even then it suffers from performance issues and the good ol' cross browser issues. Flash, despite being a plug-in made by a money obsessed company, is still the best creative environment on the web.

Uh jeez... just no....

Having a royalty free H.264 benefits BOTH html5 and flash. Content producers using either format can breathe a sigh of relief that there will be no hidden costs in the future. In fact a royalty free H.264 also benefits the video industry in terms of technical effectiveness as developers will strive to improve their codecs in the spirit of good fair competition.

And that's not Adobes main argument. Adobes main argument is the lack of functionality with HTML5, namely the (at the moment) lack of streaming and content protection. Though this will change.

Opera, once again, makes complete sense. Flash is not an ideal video container, and this where HTML5 absolutely should take over, but it is important to the web and hence it should be supported. So many people seem to think that Flash and HTML are somehow technology rivals when in reality they actually work side by side.

I really do hope Adobe opens up Flash and Apple stops being big brother so much.

Flash is the 'Bastard stepchild of coding'..... thats just great objective journalism. Denial is a terrible thing but I couldn't imagine anyone truly wanting no flash at all on the iPad, deep down I mean. More is better. Having a go at Adobe for their product at not being open source yada yada and at the same time not having a go at Apple for their closed-source apps is hypocritical. I can't believe noone makes that connection.

I imagine Flash is being kept to support the fancy homepage flash navigation and not just for the video player itself.

Google simply want to support was is best for the internet in the present and future. Namely both Flash and HTML5. HTML5 will be a major part of the internet in the future but it will never ever completely take over from other formats such as Flash.

Sure there is also the business aspect of getting an edge over Apple by having Flash integrated but lets not forget that both of these companies are out to make money and secure market share. Apple have decided that Flash threatens their app store sales and hence have disguised a business decision as a technical problem. Google on the other hand have used this against Apple in a clear and positive way. I for one am now heavily favouring the Chrome angle rather than the iPhone/iPad angle.

Not true at all. The rollover state is a key interactive feature of flash but its the click that is the primary interactive event. Some pieces of flash won't work properly on the current 10.1 flash player because of the rollover issue but this can easily be remedied through a flash player update (i.e. 10.2 detects touch screens and redirects mouse_down events to rollOver events or something to that effect).

On another note it still surprises me how people confuse what Flash can do and what HTML5 can do. HTML5 (even in conjuncture with something like jQuery) still has nothing on what Flash can do. Until someone creates a HTML game that is of a similar interactive caliber to a modern Flash game we are going to be taking a big step back with the lack of Flash on apple mobile tech.

Let alone the fact that HTML5 will not be in widespread use until 2012 and not complete finalised and supported as late as 2022.

I agree, major redesign fail. I don't quite understand why the ipod classic hasn't received a decent facelift or upgrade. The UI is the same, the screen is still the same small screen from the ipod video, still has a massive wheel, and no significant memory increase. I would have considered a 250gb or even the slimmer 160gb if the ipod got a design overhaul. I'll stick with my old 160gb classic thanks.

Very disappointed with this "refresh".

Hmmm was waiting for something more than just a memory increase. Once again I will wait another year before upgrading my classic chunky 160. If the updated classic was more than just a memory increase I'd consider that over the touch but it still has the same small screen and massive wheel. Quite disappointed with the ipod lineup.