[Pxtl]

Not only that, but the GPU exposure to HTML5 creates a massive stability and security risk.

Flash failed not just because it was a browser plug-in, but also because it was terrible - Adobe no longer knew how to tame the beast they'd created and the result was terrible performance and bad user-experience. I'm sad a more sane platform for game/video content didn't win. The browser doesn't need to do everything.

HTML5 for this kind of work is the ultimate square-peg-round-hole solution. HTML is still fundamentally a document platform, and Javascript was never designed for games or video.

We'll get there, but only by the most roundabout fashion possible.

[BatFastard]

Disagree, Adobe's problem was they made it too easy to create crappy content which could give the browser bad performance. And by make it too easy to deploy that bad content to the web. Now that the majority of bad flash developers are gone, and it's being used less for ads and more for mobile, maybe it can make a come back.

[jdc]

What do you think Adobe should have done to hinder people from creating (or perhaps publishing) low quality content?

[ethbro]

Require developer accounts with authorization tokens to consume more than a set amount of CPU before the framework terminated your animation? Call it "Flash Pro" or something.

Then at least you've got an account on Joe frameloop ad.

[nemothekid]

So I would need a developer token to put up a flash animation on my website? I'm sure that would have killed adoption, and my hunch says that the ad agencies that were churning out the 100% CPU ads who dropped $799 on Flash could pay for the developer account anyways.

[ilaksh]

WebGL is not a massive security or stability risk. That security stuff was mostly paid FUD from fraudulent demos that faked data leaks. The stability issues have mainly been avoided by not including WebGL content on non-graphics pages.