If you have any connection to the web or tech world at all, you are at least familiar with the ensuing battle of "Flash vs HTML5". In fact, last year Apple CEO and tech-world superstar Steve Jobs famously and publicly aired his own thoughts on what is lacking in Flash for the future.
While in many respects I disdain this controversy for the false publicity it brings to HTML5 (where it should be getting publicity for it's more legit implications), there is a crapton of validity to the argument.
I for one am in favor of HTML5 technologies replacing Flash, and for reasons I will not articulate in this post.
But here's my big pet peeve with the controversy: HTML5 and Flash are like comparing Apples and Oranges.
HTML5, technically speaking, is just a specification for the version of a markup language. It's not a scripting language like Actionscript; it's not a codec for video; it's not even presentational! And typically when people compare Flash to HTML5 they are referring to the use of Flash for presentational elements of a website, or content delivery (ie audio and video).
So while I'm not arguing against HTML5 in place of Flash, I'm arguing that the way we talk about the topic should change, and become more relevant to the true implications of HTML5. Things like how it's not going to replace anyone technology, but the possibilities enabled by the HTML5 spec will make room for many other technologies in combination to replace many "purpose-served" technologies like Adobe Flash.