That is also great that with HTML5 you can use now many features that in past was available only in flash. HTML5 can look back at many issues that flash has since flash was pioneer in many areas.

There are many programming languages out there and it is not right for one individual to impose which language to use.

1. Compatibility issues and «not showing anything» is not the same, by a long shot.

2. Proprietary does not mean you have to pay for a license. But it does mean that a company (which has making money as a goal) might demand money for a license whenever they wish. Or prevent you from controlling how your content is displayed.

8. Control over the fact that it always will be free. That’s what I need. Adobe can do whatever they want with the Flashplayer required to display the content. That is not freedom.

Most of the features you mention at the end are coming in HTML5. WebGL and websockets solves all of that.

2. How on earth you need to pay for plugin licence. Go and download plugin here http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ and sdk here http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Flex+SDK

3. Yes, if developer has not added such functionality.

4. -

5. Flash source code is binary. That’s one of the reasons flash weights less, but that really is not the point here, since you can compress html contents for faster downloads using gzip algorithm on supported browsers. If you are worried about search engines, nobody is preventing you putting text contents behind the flash. That is what I always do. Create primitive XHTML with all textual contents from flash and database. If you think it is extra work then I think you are lazy. Quite recently I built flash site that ranked at very top by search keywords client requested, because for XHTML search engine version I spent more time on thinking about SEO.

6. Listen to yourself «If browser doesn’t support the CSS». Are you from past? For those unlucky 5% who does not have flash player installed put a link to flash plugin download page. Or for humble systems and search engines as I said, create plain XHTML with textual contents. If you are not able to run flash on your agent, then probably you don’t care about visual effects any way. This is what I always do.

7. It is owners decision how the web page should look, and it really should be owners decision.

8. Even though it is not licensed for free use, you are legitime to use if for free and develop on platform for free what else do you need?

9. …

Allright I’m tired of writing. I agree with Morten that your points based either on lack of your knowledge, or absolutely irrelevant issues or shortcomings that arises from bad developers not technology itself.

My point is that you should stop telling everybody how bad technology flash is. Because people with lack of understanding can actually believe your words without understanding technology. I like HTML of it’s simplicity. This is a very good format for documentation, manuals, laws and news portals. But when it comes to Rich user experience the flash is the right choice. Even if it is a whole web page. In my opinion HTML5 new graphical and visual elements were unnecessary. HTML 5 will never substitute flash. What you already see that that developers with minimal experience are starting to put together resource demanding code and it runs even slower than flash did. HTML5 will gain it’s bad reputation for the very same reasong flash gain it’s bad reputation – lack of smart developers. You can turn of flash if you do not like flash banners today, but you will not be able to turn off HTML5 banners tomorrow.

So please understand that all technologies are good. In this case both technologies has it’s own application, and even there is overlapping usage area. Respect actionscript developers as we respect HTML developers.

I will also quickly add flash advantages you were probably unaware of.
* Raw bitmap data manipulation using BitmapData
* Low level CPU programming using Pixelbender
* Low level GPU programming using 3D engine Molehill
* Remote procedure calls
* P2P direct connections for chat, video and audio translation using Universal Datagram Protocol

REALITY CHECK: Flash is ANNOYING!!! and always has been. I wish designers would just listen when they’re told this. For every 1 that has basic website functionality, there are thousands upon thousands that are complete rubbish in terms of usability. An all-flash website is GUARANTEED to lose clients’ viewers for one reason or another. It’s simply not worth it for the client and is purely self-indulgent for the designer.

Designers may love it but it creates an extremely poor user experience for a significant percentage of Internet users:

1) Those with older PCs or
2) Slower Internet Connections or
3) 64 bit Operating sytems or
4) Limited bandwidth (or who must limit bandwidth due to being charged for overages or even having their Internet cut off for 24 hours as HughesNet does if you exceed your limits)!
5) When using mobile phones
6) Internet Users with common disabilities such as reduced vision

I know most designers love Flash; however, it is NOT in the best interests of businesses whose primary purpose should be offering information to their potential buyers and NOT entertainment. For that we can watch movies!

See my just published post which I link from this comment adding more reasons why Flash is a bad idea and also when it can be very useful.

html,css and javascript are more than enough.

fucking useless flash is for morons.
anyone who uses flash to impress people can suck on my cock and go fuck themselves.

fuck flash and fuck what it does.