The most important aspect of HTML5 isn’t the new stuff like video and canvas (which Safari and Firefox have both been shipping for years) it’s actually the honest-to-god promise of interoperability. Even stodgy old Microsoft, who has been doing their best to hold back the web for nearly a decade, understands this and you’ll see it throughout their marketing for IE9. … The idea that the same markup, even with mistakes, will be rendered exactly the same. HTML5 represents the chance for browsers to work together and find common ground.

That’s Christopher Blizzard, the Director of Developer Relations and Open Source Evangelist at Mozilla in his June post, intellectual honesty and html5.

He’s referring to Apple’s HTML5 demo. It seems somewhere along the way, HTML5 went from specification to consumer marketing buzzword, and now everyone is confused about what HTML5 is and isn’t, and which browsers support it and don’t.

Thumbs down Apple. Thumbs down.

So Apple announced the iPad, and it won’t support Flash.

That shouldn’t be a surprise. Neither the iPhone nor iPod Touch support Flash. Indeed most mobile platforms don’t (yet) support Flash. Even the smartest of smart phones have limited processing power and storage space compared to laptops and desktops.

According to Steve Jobs, Apple doesn’t support Flash on its mobile devices because “it’s buggy.” But I’d guess their decision has as much to do with Flash’s capabilities. Many of the products in that cash cow known as the Apple App Store could be developed using Flash instead.¹ Supporting Flash would undermine that billion-dollar revenue stream, piss off iPhone / iPad developers, and also put Apple at Adobe’s mercy.

Besides, everyone’s moving towards HTML5, right? Well yes they are, but not so quickly. I wouldn’t rule Flash out for another 3 to 5 years.

Why do I say this? Four reasons:

1. Flash has inertia on its side. Major content sites such as Disney and Hulu still use Flash to deliver video, animation, and interactive experiences. According to Adobe’s statistics, Flash has over 90% penetration in mature markets. Developers already know how to use Flash and ActionScript to create these experiences. In short: there are a lot of folks invested in Flash as a platform.

2. HTML 5 isn’t quite ready for prime time. It’s a shifting standard, a work-in-progress. Though even Internet Explorer 8 supports some significant HTML5 features, Internet Explorers 6 and 7 do not. And both browser versions are still used widely enough that dropping support is not an option for most developers.²

3. Flash is still the best cross-browser, cross-platform way to serve audio and video. Safari / WebKit, Firefox / Mozilla and Opera all support the HTML5 video element. They do not, however support the same codec.

   Apple is squarely in the H.264 camp. Google paid a licensing fee so that it could include an H.264 decoder in Chrome. H.264 is a patented codec. Any browser that wants to enable H.264 video will need to pay a licensing fee.

   Licensing fees and patent concerns are why Opera and Mozilla are backing Ogg Theora. Ogg Theora is an open sourced codec with no known patents. I should add here that Chrome also supports Ogg Theora. Google, perhaps wisely, chose to include both.

   The big monkey wrench in video element adoption, however, is Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is waiting for them other fools to work out that default codec business before it implements support for the element.

   And all of this is before we get into the differences in how browser vendors will execute the specification. That’s a whole ‘nother headache.

   We will be using Flash until clients are willing to pay for separate Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer video integration or until the HTML5 working group agrees on a default codec.

4. Adobe is working to bring Flash to other mobile platforms. As Adobe’s Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch explained, We are now on the verge of delivering Flash Player 10.1 for smartphones with all but one of the top manufacturers. This includes Google’s Android, RIM’s Blackberry, Nokia, Palm Pre and many others across form factors including not only smartphones but also tablets, netbooks, and internet-connected TVs. Could the iPhone and iPad’s lack of Flash support be a deciding factor in consumers’ decisions not to buy an Apple device?

My Prediction for Flash

I suspect that as HTML5 gains prominence, Flash will — eff that, it should — shift from an authoring environment for its proprietary SWF format to one that generates HTML, CSS, JS and SVG code for the browser. I think the building blocks for such software are in place. Flash Builder (formerly Flex Builder) for example, eliminates (most of) the need for FLA files. Perhaps developers will one day use a mix of ActionScript and JavaScript in the Flash Builder authoring environment to create web-ready assets and animation that don’t require a browser plug-in.

Mobile-friendly Web Development Right Now

Despite the fact that Flash is supposed to come to every other mobile platform, Apple’s decision to keep Flash off of the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch is not without impact. Apple still runs the smart phone market; in some ways they drive the mobile web. That means the prudent path is (still) progressive enhancement, and ensuring that your critical content and navigation are built using HTML.

So will I buy an iPad?

Nope. I have a laptop, a smart phone (a T-Mobile G1), a desktop and an iPod Touch. To me, the iPad is that weird spot between my smart phone or iPod Touch and a laptop with the convenience of neither. It doesn’t have the pocket-sized portability of my iPod Touch or my phone. And it doesn’t (yet) have the robust features of a laptop — USB ports, optical media drives, and the ability to install any app. I can’t justify the value for the price.

Besides, I still much prefer books to e-readers. I can sell books, trade books, leave books, loan books, and get books wet. I am not about to soak in the tub with a $300 device, but I would with an $11 book.

What do you think about the iPad, Apple’s decision, or the future of Flash and HTML5?

¹ Many of these apps could also be built using HTML, CSS and JavaScript, but there’s no money in that either.

² There are scripts available to make IE act right, of course. ExCanvas, for example, mimics support for the canvas element in IE. Simple HTML5 isn’t much different from HTML 4.01. You can actually forge ahead with HTML5 now if you don’t need advanced features like DOM Storage.

In order to release an iPhone application without having to submit it to Apple’s insane App Store process, developers could just use Web technologies and create Web apps instead of native apps.

In other words, iPhone developers are doing it wrong. By focusing on native applications, they are subjecting themselves to Apple’s approval process unnecessarily. Safari, he argues, is all most application developers need, and the reluctance of iPhone developers to embrace web technologies has more to do with snobbery than functionality.

The fundamental problem on the iPhone is not Apple’s App Store approval policies, but the iPhone developers’ arrogant disdain for Web technologies. … They dismiss Web technologies as toys for children. JavaScript is just this little language that cannot possibly compare to real technologies such as the one they’re using. HTML is too simple. Real programmers don’t do that stuff. As to Web developers, they are just glorified pixel-pushers that should in no circumstance be taken seriously.

I agree that most iPhone applications don’t need to be native ones. I also agree that many developers — not just iPhone developers — dismiss client-side programming as kid stuff.

I suspect, however, that iPhone developers really prefer native applications because they’re trying to make money. Apple’s App Store lets developers get paid and helps them protect their product with a degree of digital rights management the web doesn’t provide.

TraceMonkey, Resig explains, uses a computing technique known as trace trees (PDF) which adds just-in-time native code compilation to SpiderMonkey, Firefox’s current rendering engine.

What does this mean? As Resig explains:

It means that JavaScript is no longer confined by the previously-challenging resource of processing power. With this improvement it’s leap-frogged any sort of traditional and has gone head-to-head with computationally-powerful languages like C.

In other words, we’ll get JavaScript processing speeds that are Usain Bolt-on-crack fast, opening the door for more powerful JavaScript-powered applications.

Firefox’s announcement comes a few months after the WebKit team’s announcement of SquirrelFish, which will be the JavaScript engine used in Safari 4.

Resig and Brendan Eich also point out that these TraceMonkey improvements (and presumably SquirrelFish’s improvements) in conjunction with HTML 5‘s canvas element will mean we’ll see some slick JavaScript animation and game experiences, such as this one by Zachary Johnson.

The obvious roadblock to widespread adoption of all of this whiz-bangy JavaScript+<canvas> goodness is, of course, Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer 7 does not support the canvas element. Version 8 of the browser will not, although there is a workaround for IE7 available.

Still, without the dominant web browser on board — and conceivably not coming on board for at least a few years — the widespread use of JavaScript animations may not take off for some time.

Want to check see TraceMonkey in action? Download a nightly build of Firefox (codenamed Minefield), and in the about:config panel, set javascript.options.jit.content equal to true.

Also check out Mike Schroepfer’s screencast What can you do when your browser is 7 times faster?