253
The demise of Flash didn't bring any big HTML5/JS equivalent for watching animations; fast internet and better video compression made those types of animations become raster videos as well (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Some of you might remember when a 3mb flash animation could pack in some 5 minutes of animation, with the more advanced ones even having chapter/scene selectors, which could also include clickable easter eggs and other kinds of interactions during the scenes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (22 children)

Again: HTML5 was supported way, way before flash disappeared.

https://caniuse.com/?search=canvas

  • Basic support in all major browsers since: 2012
  • WebGL support in all major browsers since: 2013
  • Full support in all major browsers since: 2013 (except Edge, which was released in 2015, IE didn't support everything)

That's way before flash was discontinued. Except of on iOS, but smartphones were never the main platform for flash games/animation.

Flash-style skeletal animation was a result of technical limitations, not a deliberate art choice. The thing that killed flash-style animation was (a) the availability of better things like full-motion rasterized video and (b) the internet moving away from personal websites and towards big platforms, and almost all big platforms restricted the kind of content you can post to text, images and video.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (10 children)

    A vector video format does exist: animated SVG. It has all the features you claim are missing.

    But nobody uses it because it is much more complicated to do than rasterized video and has no relevant advantages.

    You keep claiming that features don't exist even though every single one of these features do exist but are just not used a lot because they are more complicated and have no relevant benefits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    A video has sound, can be exported from the animation software to a single file, and it can be played in a standard video player.

    Animated SVG does not sound like it does that, and needing new paid* software isn't great for adoption either. And honestly, I've never even heard of animated SVG (I'm well aware of SVG and that it probably could be animated with CSS or JS but that alone does not make it a thing).

    The fact that vector works at resolutions (even if they don't exist yet!) without the author even needing to think about it (let alone re-export) is an advantage. It can be great for many 2D aesthetics (many cartoons even used it!), the biggest complication is Adobe (and whoever is selling a subscription to what you mentioned).

    Also that people are still developing things with Flash (even if it has to be ran via Ruffle) tells me again that the issue isn't vector, it's that replacing a format with ingredients is not an effective strategy if you actually want people to use it.

    * yeah I know Flash was expensive as well (except y'know... other ways), but communities were already using it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    The fact that vector works at resolutions (even if they don't exist yet!) without the author even needing to think about it (let alone re-export) is an advantage.

    That's why I was talking about meaningful advantages. Today, stuff gets exported in 4k and that's it. No need for anything more.

    That nobody uses animated SVG should give you a clue about how many people value vector graphics over rasterization. It has uses (mostly when you expect stuff to get zoomed a lot) but only in quite specific use cases.

    There's ton of free software that exports to HTML5, including most major game engines. And people use that a lot. In fact, you can make VR games that fully run in a browser.

    Browser games still exist. They run on HTML5 now, not on Flash. Web video still exists. It runs on HTML5 players, not on Flash. Little animations in websites still exist. They run on HTML5/SVG/CSS, not on Flash. Flash really was just replaced by HTML5, because it's plain better on every front.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Today, stuff gets exported in 4k and that’s it. No need for anything more.

    I don't think it's as ubiquitous as you think. 1080p is pretty much standard (aside from old videos), 4K is still high-end and most uploading to that on YT are probably more tech-leaning channels who actually do use it. I even see new stuff from TV corps that's still only 1080p.

    4K if you're using a full-raster workflow is taxing at every step. Display, CPU/GPU (for software stability, filters/effects), RAM and storage, internet upload speed, also camera (and fast storage there too) where relevant. Also backups, and maybe even higher-res workflow to allow room to crop/re-frame if needed.

    I imagine it must be a disappointment to actually buy a 4K monitor for content viewing, stuck watching 1080p on new videos because the creators can't afford that workflow or just don't care. Even stuff that is 4K might have issues with encoding quality due to cost-cutting (or requires higher subscription cost).

    8K is a thing too (but even more impractical), so the problem is repeated there too.

    So yeah, I would say it is a meaningful difference that vector doesn't have this problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Tbh, Vector only marginally solves that issue. If it's a filmed video, then it doesn't solve it at all, since it just creates "vector pixels" instead, which don't scale either. So it would only work for artificially created videos, and there it would only work for 2D content, and only 2D content that doesn't use bitmaps in it.

    It's quite a limited subset of the videos one might watch. In fact, I can't remember the last time I watched a 2D purely PC generated video that wasn't a screen recording from some game (which is, almost per definition, also rasterized).

    The other problem there is that vector graphics can be rasterized into however many pixels you want, but the detail from the source material doesn't improve. Yes, the edges around a flat area are smoother, but it's still edges around a flat area.

    Compare the best flash animation you can find with some random demo video on youtube (or if you want to go to the extreme: with the graphics of some hollywood CGI). The infinite scalability of vector graphics won't make the flash animation look better than the raster graphics image.

    The "infinite scalability" of vector graphics are a mostly academic point unless you are e.g. designing a company logo that needs to look sharp both on a tiny stamp and on the side of the corporate headquarter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Spoken like someone who has never animated something in flash.

    Go ahead and try to make an animated music video in SVG. Tell me how easy it was. It's it something a middle schooler could pick up easily after a couple hours?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Ok, tell me: How many people make animated music videos and publish them on Youtube, versus how many people make animated music videos and publish them as Flash videos in 2025?

    How many people did that in 2015 in Youtube vs Flash videos?

    Nobody cares about Flash because it sucks. Even back in 2012 Flash sucked. It was a really bad tech and by 2015 it was mostly used by people to dumb to learn real programming languages and frameworks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Where do you expect me to get actual numbers from?

    But as a proportion of content creators, back in the early 10s a huge proportion of content creators were submitting content to places like newgrounds. And itch.io equivalents all used flash.

    And around 2015, the total number dropped, but didn't have a corresponding increase in non-flash equivalents.

    Why? Because what few tools existed to do so had a much much much higher bar for entry. So the content simply never got created.

    Flash sucked as a content consumer because the plugins had mediocre support and were full of vulnerabilities.
    But as a creator, it was great.

    People too dumb to dumb to learn real programming languages and frameworks

    Eww. that's elitist as fuck.
    These people aren't software devs. They shouldn't need to learn to code in order to animate a video.
    For absolute shame. Wow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You know what, I can give you numbers:

    The table shows how YouTube's video count grew from 0.5 billion in 2015 to 5.1 billion in 2025. The biggest jumps happened in 2023 and 2025, with 800 million new videos each year.

    https://seo.ai/blog/how-many-videos-are-on-youtube

    Die Seite hat nach eigenen Angaben über 1.400.000 registrierte Mitglieder und über 660.000 Einträge (Stand: 7. April 2013).

    "The Site has, according to their own statements, over 1 400 000 registered users and over 660 000 entries (7th of April 2013).

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrounds

    (Had to resort to German Wikipedia, because their stats site has been down for a long time and wasn't saved in Webarchive.)

    So you see, even at the height of their popularity, they had about 1/1000 of the content of Youtube and compared to now, it's 1/10000. And that's only Youtube, not counting Facebook, Reddit, Tiktok, Instagram and all those other platforms people use to share their content.

    And around 2015, the total number dropped, but didn't have a corresponding increase in non-flash equivalents.

    So yes, there has been a massive, massive increase in non-flash video content, so much of an increase that flash looks like a tiny spec of a niche of internet history.

    In fact, most of the old flash videos have more views on youtube than they ever had in their original forms.

    Eww. that's elitist as fuck. These people aren't software devs. They shouldn't need to learn to code in order to animate a video. For absolute shame. Wow.

    And now you are getting onto something. No need to program when making a video for Youtube.

    Flash was abandoned as fast as possible as soon as newer, easier and better alternatives arrived.

    Those who wanted to code, left for JS. Those who wanted to make videos left for Youtube and the likes. Those who wanted to make games left for Unity and other engines.

    Flash was just outdated, old technology. Nothing else.

    You have been elitist as fuck throughout all your comments in this chain, thinking that you are somehow better than everyone else because you got stuck in some old software and didn't manage to migrate to something better.

    If you aren't a developer, don't claim to be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    So yes, there has been a massive, massive increase in non-flash video content

    how many of those are animated video. holy willful misinterpretation.

    In fact, most of the old flash videos have more views on youtube than they ever had in their original forms.

    what point do you think you're making here?
    this whole thread is lamenting the fall of interactive animation. you cant hide a funny mouse-over easter-eggs in a youtube video, like OP is talking about. The file sizes are huge.

    Flash was abandoned as fast as possible as soon as newer, easier and better alternatives arrived.

    except that the alternatives that fulfill the wants of OP are way harder to make the equivalent art.

    You have been elitist as fuck throughout all your comments in this chain, thinking that you are somehow better than everyone else because you got stuck in some old software and didn't manage to migrate to something better.

    Only because, as you demonstrated in the other thread, you've (willfully?) misread what I've said. meanwhile you've just told people "learn to code or pick up a camera, fuck the art that you actually wanted to make"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    how many of those are animated video. holy willful misinterpretation.

    Definitely much, much more than anything that was ever made in flash. Also, flash animation started because there was nothing else that could fit into a size that was affordable enough to host and small enough to download over low bandwidth internet. Two constraints that don't matter any more.

    this whole thread is lamenting the fall of interactive animation. you cant hide a funny mouse-over easter-eggs in a youtube video, like OP is talking about.

    So now we are back to "needs programming", which you just said in your last comment that it is not what you are talking about. You aren't just moving the goal posts, you are switching them back and forth.

    The file sizes are huge.

    Who cares? It's not the early 2000s any more.

    except that the alternatives that fulfill the wants of OP are way harder to make the equivalent art.

    Again, you seem to think that Unity doesn't exist, same as you claimed above that Unity can only do 3D and you claimed you need to know how to program to use Unity. None of which is true.

    Only because, as you demonstrated in the other thread, you’ve (willfully?) misread what I’ve said. meanwhile you’ve just told people “learn to code or pick up a camera, fuck the art that you actually wanted to make”

    The art that YOU wanted to make. Apart from you and that other dude in this thread I have never actually heard of anyone being sad that Flash is gone.

    And if you really want to make flash stuff, you can use one of the dozens of Flash to HTML5 converters (that you apparently don't know exist) or a Flash on Webassembly implementation, which exist as well.

    You are crying over the loss of something that still exists, and people are not using it because it still sucks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    Idk how old you are but it feels like you're just looking up dates without really understanding what it was like.

    I did flash animation.
    I am a developer (I prefer backend but we all have to do some web).
    I was an adult during that time.

    The textbook dates don't tell the story. I'm telling you that flash died long before support ended. I'm telling you that replacement tools didn't exist yet. I'm telling you that getting flash artists to try to animation using JavaScript was not feasible. It's crazy to me that you think that the existence of a basic canvas support means that artists had an realistic path to making their art.

    Smartphones weren't the main platform for flash, and that's why it died early.

    You've got a skewed view of what flash was used to animate. People made absolutely beautiful flash. Just like all art, there is good and bad. Flash made it accessible enough that bad amateurs could produce reasonable animations.
    Rasterized video was not better. What a crazy thing to say.
    Personal websites? You think that people mostly consumed flash animation and games from personal websites??? Where did you get this from?

    It feels like you're reading this from a timeline of major events instead of having lived it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Dude, I'be been developing HTML apps from 2008 on. Early HTML5 browser support was literally my job at that time.

    You seem to have totally ignored the next gen tech at that time and now you can't remember what happened back then.

    And now you are basing your whole argumentation on "you must be a kid".

    Kiddo, I'm likely pretty much the same age as you.

    You were the one who brought up canvas support. By 2015 you could export full 3D games made in Unity to HTML5. And that was certainly not the first, there were literally dozens of other engines that allowed export to HTML5/WebGL at that time.

    If you are too young to remember, that's not my problem, little child.

    Flash died because people moved to a better, more future-proof stack. And you claiming that little 2D animations in Flash were technically much, much better than full 3D rendering with GPU support is honestly wild.

    (If you want to get offensive because you don't have arguments, fine, I can get offensive too, little child.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Flash. Animators. Weren't. Devs.

    I don't know how many times I need to beat this into your skull. I've never said it was impossible. I said it was setting the bar unfeasibly high for the vast vast majority of content creators. It was easy. The bar for entry was low. tons of literal children were making flash videos.

    And you're saying that "all they needed to do was become a software developer". Oh they just needed to learn unity and 3d modeling! Should be no problem for a 14yo, that's why we see so many 14yo indie devs making unity games.

    Be so for real.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    You were the one harping on how you were a great flash "developer".

    That was your argument. Now you are claiming that you weren't a developer. Make up your mind.

    Now you don't even know that Unity totally does 2D as well and that it's easier to use than Flash ever was. So your argument boils down to the fact that you don't know anything about the topic at hand.

    People who are making videos nowadays don't need to program either, they just animate a video and upload it to youtube. No programming needed.

    But it was you who claimed that "being a flash developer" is somehow superior to that.

    In fact, we do see a ton of kids making games e.g. using Unity or other tools. Have you ever heard of Roblox? That whole ecosystem is run by kids making games.

    You are just wildly out of touch and stuck in the past.

    Flash sucked. There's better alternatives today. You are out of touch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    learn to read. where did I say I was a flash developer, let alone a great one?
    I'll tell you what I did say: I said I was an (amateur) flash animator starting in middleschool, and I was a developer (not flash) by the time flash was dying (which IMO is the early to mid 10s).

    fucking figure out what your argument even is.
    I keep saying "it was difficult for people back then to find alternatives that let them express their art as easily, and thats why it died"
    You keep talking about how easy it is now which is completely irrelevant. like your whole aside about roblox.
    then you keep dragging on textbook dates and stats, which tell you what happened, but not why.

    Now you don't even know that Unity totally does 2D as well and that it's easier to use than Flash ever was

    easier to use for what?
    For shits and giggles I decided to check out a tutorial on making 2D cutscenes in unity. and one on how to use unity Animator. and another for how to make cutscenes.
    and you're laughably wrong. And I didn't even use a modern version of flash, I used Macromedia FlashMX from 2002.
    you seem to have a gross misunderstanding about what animation outside of video games involves, especially as an amateur. if you want to argue that its easier now to make animation than it is back in 2015, I'll agree.
    if you want to argue that unity is now easier to make games than flash was back in 2015, I'll agree. If you want to argue that unity in 2015 was easier to make games than flash was in 2015, IDK what unity was like in 2015 but it wouldn't surprise me.

    but for you to say that prior to ~2015 it was easier to make 2D animation using unity or javascript+canvas/SVG than it was to make 2D animation in flash, then that is just crazy. its just ignorant.
    If you disagree, show me a unity/canvas animation tutorial that involves more than simple translation of a few pre-made sprites. Ideally one at least 10 years old, but I'd even accept a modern one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I did flash animation. I am a developer (I prefer backend but we all have to do some web). I was an adult during that time.

    This is what you said a bit above.

    This is what you are saying now:

    I’ll tell you what I did say: I said I was an (amateur) flash animator starting in middleschool, and I was a developer (not flash) by the time flash was dying (which IMO is the early to mid 10s).

    These two statements contradict. Were you an adult at the time or in middle school?

    If you say you weren't a flash developer, then why include that statement above, except to give yourself an air of fake authority as you did in the whole rest of the comment above where you tried to tell me that you are a great big adult, super old, and I am a child.

    If you became an adult in the mid 10s, then you are younger than me, kiddo.

    but for you to say that prior to ~2015 it was easier to make 2D animation using unity or javascript+canvas/SVG than it was to make 2D animation in flash, then that is just crazy. its just ignorant.

    There were plenty of tools to make 2D animation even before 2012. You just know your one single little tool and that's all you know. Congratulations.

    Heck, yes, even HTML+JS was for making 2D animations in 2010, because that was what I did back then. It was super easy, and as long as you didn't target IE with Vanilla JS, it was really really easy.

    Also:

    by the time flash was dying (which IMO is the early to mid 10s).

    but for you to say that prior to ~2015 it was easier to make 2D animation using unity or javascript+canvas/SVG than it was to make 2D animation in flash, then that is just crazy. its just ignorant.

    So how much time is between "mid 10s" and 2015?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I was avoiding my pending messages for fear of what bullshit you replied. I wish I waited longer.

    These two statements contradict. Were you an adult at the time or in middle school?

    Only if you're ignorant, or willfully misinterpreting.

    I learned flash animation in middle school.
    I was still doing it as a hobby as a young adult.
    I learned development in college.
    My use of flashmx gives me an idea of how difficult flash animation was.
    My career of development gives me an idea of how difficult doing JavaScript animation is.
    I was an adult, in the career of software dev, and a hobby of flash animation, when flash died.

    If you think that tools for web animation without flash were so easy in the mid-10s, then show some proof. Link me to a tutorial. I can link you to a flash tutorial if you want.

    Actually never mind, I'm done with your ignorant bullshit. You've gotten me to waste too much time on your absolute nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Apparently you were neither a great flash dev nor a great software dev, but just someone who talks a lot.

    Being offensive doesn't make your point any more correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Apparently you can't read, so we both have things we need to work on 🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)