this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
262 points (96.5% liked)
Showerthoughts
37706 readers
1083 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not really true. You can do animation in HTML5 just like you could in flash. In fact, there are even quite a few ways you can acomplish the same.
All of that allows for animation, games and interactivity, no problem.
There are dozens of tools that allow you to build flash-like animation and package it easily. Tons of game engines allow to export to HTML5, just at the press of a button. And there are still websites hosting browser games that fill that spot. There's even HTML5 browser games that run in VR.
But there are two big caveats:
Sorry if this sounds a bit defensive, it's frustrating when someone writes a novel telling you're wrong but didn't spend the time to read what you wrote first.
I didn't say it's not possible.
I said that back when flash functionally died, it wasn't feasible.
HTML 5 was barely supported by browsers. HTML 5 canvas had no support at all. WASM didn't have any support. Having flash animators and flash game devs manually code the JavaScript and HTML just wasn't realistic, and no tools existed at the time to span the gap.
Now it is a little easier with things like canvas, and more importantly now there are tools that animators can use and export as a webpage.
But in the intervening years, all the flash hosting websites died. Even newgrounds is a ghost of what it was. So even if the tools are there, the communities are all gone. Animators just export to video now, because that's where the viewers are.
You mean in 2021 HTML5 was barely supported by browsers? Adobe ended support for Flash Player on 31th December 2020.
For comparison, the original HTML5 W3C recommendation was retired in 2018 and even Version 5.3 was retired less than a month after Flash Player was retired.
Functionally. Functionally. I said functionally for a reason. I didn't just add that word in because I liked how it looked.
When was the last time you actually saw flash content?
Browser extension support deteriorated. It never worked on iOS. People stopped making flash content because folks couldn't view it long before it officially became unsupported.
Again: HTML5 was supported way, way before flash disappeared.
https://caniuse.com/?search=canvas
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
You keep saying 'better' like if heavier solutions have no downsides, like saying raytracing or gaussian splatting make all older rendering tech obsolete.
For individual animations sure data doesn't seem to matter, but if you want to binge/download something like Homestar Runner at 1080p+ that data adds up when pre-rastered. The internet in the US isn't always great (esp. rural, cost), even worse with upload speed.
Flash also had frame animation, with bezier curves and vector blob drawing... both of which are the big thing missing from modern solutions. Alternatives in modern engines aren't quite the same and must be intentionally sought out, and also I don't think that'd even be well supported by platforms (itch doesn't even have an animation section) unless you're fine with it being in a games section.
Newgrounds also still does Flash Forward jams. I wouldn't say "better" things killed Flash, just that support was ripped away. There isn't much of a choice. If you want Flash-style animation (and I don't mean skeletal-only), it's just Ruffle or maybe Wick Editor.
I see this as an implementation failure.
WebGL doesn't have a container format, and a vector video format could exist (on Youtube, or played with an HTML5 video player) but doesn't. The internet "moved away" because the key players who killed Flash didn't implement things that would bring HTML5 to closer parity with what Flash did.
I could also see parallels made to other parts of life where the choice has been made for you many years ago.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You know what, I can give you numbers:
https://seo.ai/blog/how-many-videos-are-on-youtube
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.
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.
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.
how many of those are animated video. holy willful misinterpretation.
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.
except that the alternatives that fulfill the wants of OP are way harder to make the equivalent art.
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"