HTML5 is a new buzz word that seems to be popping up left and right in the Flash world. Thanks to Steve Jobs, people are declaring that HTML5 is the new standard and companies are scrambling to "upgrade." But is HTML5 really an upgrade? There is a snarky, but true, blog post at flashlab.com/html5 that states HTML5 is actually really cool... if it was 2001.

HTML5 exists mainly for those that search and view content on an idevice (iPad, iPhone, iPod touch), which is around 1% of all on-line users. Compare that to the fact that 97% of all online users have Flash Player 10 installed and 87% of all online users CANNOT see HTML5 video. Speedtests routinely show that Flash Player outperforms HTML5 canvas. So why should developers abandon Flash for HTML5?

Because when people hear that Apple's iPad only supports HTML5 they panic. PANIC, I tell ya! It may be a buzz-word for companies but it's a buzz-kill for Flash developers.

On the flip-side, Apple support says that "Flash is a CPU hog" and including support for Flash in Apple's mobile products would suck the battery life. Is this true?

Jan Ozer, an expert in video encoding technologies who has worked in the digital world for 20 years and has authored 13 books on the subject, ran a Flash vs. HTML5 test last year. It showed that while Flash can be a CPU hog, HTML5 actually performed worse in some cases.

Some of the highlights of Ozer's findings are below. You can find the full results on StreamingLearningCenter.com

Mac Tests

• With Safari, HTML5 was the most efficient and consumed less CPU than Flash using only 12.39% CPU. With Flash 10.0, CPU utilization was at 37.41% and with Flash 10.1, it dropped to 32.07%
• With Google Chrome, Flash and HTML5 were both equally inefficient (both are around 50%)
• With Firefox, Flash was only slightly less efficient than in Safari, but better than in Chrome

Windows Tests

• Safari wouldn't play HTML5 videos, so there was no way to test that. However, Flash 10.0 used 23.22% CPU but Flash 10.1 only used 7.43% CPU
• Google Chrome was more efficient on Windows than Mac. Playback with Flash Player 10.0 was about 24% more efficient than HTML5, while Flash Player 10.1 was 58% more efficient than HTML5.
• On Firefox, Flash 10.1 dropped CPU utilization to 6% from 22% in Flash 10.0
• In IE8, Flash 10.0 used 22.41% CPU and Flash 10.1 used 14.62% CPU

In the end HTML5 is a necessary evil for the immediate future. Unless Apple decides to support Flash, which it seems to have no intention of doing any time soon, and as long as the usage of iDevices climb, which it will, then any video that uses Flash needs to be built in HTML5. Double work for developers but twice as easy for consumers.

*For more information on how well HTML5 is supported by various browsers, check out: http://www.findmebyip.com/litmus/