Half the CPU usage (Gala vs 10.1) is nice, but some testers were actually doing better than browser HTML5 performance.. So there are definitely a lot of variables at work.
For streaming H.264 video? I doubt that, but I'm open to some proof of that.
Canvas isn't a good test for this because it's still in a proof-of-concept phase, not ready to be used even though supported by all major browsers. We need WebGL in place but most importantly we need rich development tools that make coding for Canvas as easy as coding for rich animation in Flash. This is the very last hold out for Flash and one that it will not give up easily or quickly. Like HTML5, Flash has many facets and nothing will best Flash on that front for the foreseeable future.
Canvas isn't a good test for this because it's still in a proof-of-concept phase, not ready to be used even though supported by all major browsers.
One of the main reasons that Canvas is not a suitable replacement for Flash is that to animate anything, the entire canvas must be redrawn. You cannot embed a canvas within a canvas either. But with Flash you can animate small portions of the screen such as roll over buttons while the rest of the screen is doing something else. Flash is built from objects that can relate to one another, while a canvas is a discreet object to itself. Depending on the application, having independent related objects can save a tremendous amount of processor work.
With Flash however, there will always be a performance hit simply because it is a plug in and not compiled into the browser.
Why because -you say so? pffffffft. ok anonymous dude on a forum. LOL.
you're simply listing a handful of major sites. All sites, that never used flash for video at a time flash still was dominate in the interactive world and enjoyed 98% plugin penetration.
I think you're getting excited over a flurry of press releases, and I can understand why...
However, if you simply see flash a method of video delivery, well that would explain your confusion.
Whooosh..... There go those goalposts.
Originally, you said that Flash use was growing by leaps and bounds. When I pointed out just a sampling of major sites that are creating non-Flash sites, you back up to claim that none of those sites used Flash FOR VIDEO.
The funny thing is that even with your attempt to reframe the discussion, your'e wrong. Youtube used to be 100% Flash and is now offering html 5 for video.
Face it. People are abandoning Flash left and right. Whether you like it or not.
But don't worry, Adobe still has lots of money. You'll probably get paid for all your work as a shill for Flash.
That is why canvas is still a proof of concept and not a fully deployed technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
One of the main reasons that Canvas is not a suitable replacement for Flash is that to animate anything, the entire canvas must be redrawn. You cannot embed a canvas within a canvas either. But with Flash you can animate small portions of the screen such as roll over buttons while the rest of the screen is doing something else. Flash is built from objects that can relate to one another, while a canvas is a discreet object to itself. Depending on the application, having independent related objects can save a tremendous amount of processor work.
HTML5 is a better development framework for mobile devices. Web services are recognizing where things are going and responding to the reality.
And everyone would happily follow if there were easy ways to develop these technologies but abstracted javascript frameworks is not the solution because everyone and their brother has one and they are all different and incompatible with one another.
Originally, you said that Flash use was growing by leaps and bounds. When I pointed out just a sampling of major sites that are creating non-Flash sites, you back up to claim that none of those sites used Flash FOR VIDEO.
The funny thing is that even with your attempt to reframe the discussion, your'e wrong. Youtube used to be 100% Flash and is now offering html 5 for video.
Face it. People are abandoning Flash left and right. Whether you like it or not.
But don't worry, Adobe still has lots of money. You'll probably get paid for all your work as a shill for Flash.
what is with some of you that simply can't read a post???
Point out where I said those sites don't use flash for video, currently. Come on, spit it out. I made reference to the fact that at one time those site didn't use it, because flash didn't have the ability to have video...
Of course those examples were mostly major sites who WERE using flash for video and are now using another method of delivery! The point was, since flash is mainly an application development and interactive platform, this isn't -that- big a deal. But I guess that was a little too much to figure out. The line where I said those sites -weren't- using it for video, was to illustrate that at one time not very long ago, flash did not have the ability to run .flv files at all, and all those sites didn't use flash video (since it didn't exist), and flash -still-, dominated at 98% penetration rate. Holy moses this is not... rocket science!
That's true in the long run. But for right now Webkit dominates the mobile web. So its not as much of a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
And everyone would happily follow if there were easy ways to develop these technologies but abstracted javascript frameworks is not the solution because everyone and their brother has one and they are all different and incompatible with one another.
Of course those examples were mostly major sites who WERE using flash for video and are now using another method of delivery! The point was, since flash is mainly an application development and interactive platform, this isn't -that- big a deal.
personal attack removed - Mr. H
The fact that sites that used to use Flash exclusively are moving away from Flash IS THE ENTIRE DEAL. That's what the discussion is all about - in spite of your incessant attempts to change the subject.
All we heard for months was that there were so many things that REQUIRED Flash and now all these sites are doing exactly the same things without it (Hulu, Youtube, CBS, NY Times, Farmville, etc, etc, etc). Your repeated claims that nothing could replace Flash were just wrong. Your current claim that noone is leaving Flash is not only wrong, but it's laughably wrong.
That's true in the long run. But for right now Webkit dominates the mobile web. So its not as much of a problem.
Maybe so but it has no relevance with regard to which browser you target, it is just very tedious to write pure JS without a framework but still the cleanest and most legible. That is what I prefer. But the frameworks can speed things up a bit.
Apple seems to prefer prototype and scriptaculous, some of the older well established frameworks but that sort of like choosing between .net and php. It doesn't matter as long as you don't try mixing them. Some like Dojo, or jquery, Spry, etc. They all write Webkit compatible code. They are all just different. If you are planning to get fancy with the CSS then you need to use the browser prefixes anyway.
And by the way, mobile web accounts for only around 1% of all web traffic so it isn't a huge market.
Really? You're arguing for Flash and you use a test comparing Flash to Canvas to say that all HTML5 is bad? You are absurdly dense or you are getting paid by Adobe to spread FUD... You can't refute that, but go ahead and try; earn your shill money for the day.
Thanks, solipsism. I watched your video... quite clear. Also, I've checked and "gotapple" is gone (for the moment)... shilling on other threads or sites.
The fact that sites that used to use Flash exclusively are moving away from Flash IS THE ENTIRE DEAL. That's what the discussion is all about - in spite of your incessant attempts to change the subject.
All we heard for months was that there were so many things that REQUIRED Flash and now all these sites are doing exactly the same things without it (Hulu, Youtube, CBS, NY Times, Farmville, etc, etc, etc). Your repeated claims that nothing could replace Flash were just wrong. Your current claim that noone is leaving Flash is not only wrong, but it's laughably wrong.
No one is attempting to change the subject. You are attempting to make the subject about delivery of video and nothing else, and in the process you are entirely missing the point of Groovetube's arguments. I suggest you go back and read his posts over and over until you get it. Flash is not just about video delivery, in fact it is only relatively recently in the context of its lifetime that Flash has been able to deliver video.
For all the things that Flash does apart from video, there is (sadly) currently no big exodus from Flash. If a small business goes to a web-developing-house to buy a website, you can bet that 90% of the time they'll be given a website that uses Flash, along with all the usability problems highlighted in my post I linked to earlier.
No one is attempting to change the subject. You are attempting to make the subject about delivery of video and nothing else, and in the process you are entirely missing the point of Groovetube's arguments. I suggest you go back and read his posts over and over until you get it. Flash is not just about video delivery, in fact it is only relatively recently in the context of its lifetime that Flash has been able to deliver video.
For all the things that Flash does apart from video, there is (sadly) currently no big exodus from Flash.
No? So Farmville is all about video? CBS? NYTimes?
What about all those automaker's web sites that used to be 100% Flash - but are now accessible on iPhones?
Farmville I doubt is leaving Flash. They are going to release an App but that is a tiny fraction of their audience. It will remain on Flash for the regular desktop.
Farmville I doubt is leaving Flash. They are going to release an App but that is a tiny fraction of their audience. It will remain on Flash for the regular desktop.
That may be true.
What does it have to do with the oft-repeated argument that Apple needed to support Flash because Flash was so essential to modern computing?
The fact that sites that used to use Flash exclusively are moving away from Flash IS THE ENTIRE DEAL. That's what the discussion is all about - in spite of your incessant attempts to change the subject.
All we heard for months was that there were so many things that REQUIRED Flash and now all these sites are doing exactly the same things without it (Hulu, Youtube, CBS, NY Times, Farmville, etc, etc, etc). Your repeated claims that nothing could replace Flash were just wrong. Your current claim that noone is leaving Flash is not only wrong, but it's laughably wrong.
it is, apparently, to you.
But you don't seem to realize that:
1) flash was the dominant interactive tool -before- it even had the ability to even do video, video was simply a feature added much later. WHich did indeed get used a lot. It still does what it did without video very well, not only that, it has progressed extremely rapidly. Mac platform player suckage notwithstanding. That's a fact.
2) flash is a full application development platform with a very powerful programming language which is now in it's 3rd complete overhaul. It'
s capabilities and what it's used for, leaves video, in the dust. It simply cannot be compared to something like real player. That's silly.
I'll say it again. If flash dies, it won't be html5 or the video tag that does it.
No one is attempting to change the subject. You are attempting to make the subject about delivery of video and nothing else, and in the process you are entirely missing the point of Groovetube's arguments. I suggest you go back and read his posts over and over until you get it. Flash is not just about video delivery, in fact it is only relatively recently in the context of its lifetime that Flash has been able to deliver video.
For all the things that Flash does apart from video, there is (sadly) currently no big exodus from Flash. If a small business goes to a web-developing-house to buy a website, you can bet that 90% of the time they'll be given a website that uses Flash, along with all the usability problems highlighted in my post I linked to earlier.
I think it can easily be argued that Flash for video streaming is the most used and useful feature of this tech for the last decade. It allowed for cross browser and OS video playback after the fall of Real when MS had crippled browser development and Firefox was slowly forging a path for open standards.
There is clear evidence that Flash for video is being dropped in favour of other avenues. This shows that Flash's hold isn't absolute despite their installed base. Groovetube keeps changing his argument, whether he realizes it or not. He makes a blanket statement and then when he's called out on it he falls back into an area that Flash is clearly dominate and has no threat for the foreseeable future to remake his point.
The fact is, Flash is having problems on multiple fronts. It's one thing to defend against one attack, but when you have ads being delivered by webcode instead of Flash because too many people are using ad blockers; when you have MS pushing Silverlight hard which is why Adobe finally added HW acceleration and H.264 in the first place; when video streaming is being added to HTML5 making even HW decoded Flash content pale in comparison; when you have simple graphics being made easily with HTML, CSS and JS; when you have a surge of smartphones about to outpace PC sales all running full web browsers that can't support Flash and when they do finally support it won't be optimized for most of the Flash apps due to the relatively anemic ARM processors and touch-screen controls; and cheap native apps being made for these smartphones that make for a better UX over Flash apps, I have to wonder if Adobe can defend Flash on these fronts. I don't think they can. I don't think anyone could.
It's going to take a long time for Flash to fall, but when people think of fast and efficient code for your smartphone it won't be Flash they'll be thinking of. Right now, I can think of plenty of sites that use Flash when using a desktop browser, but if you change your User Agent to a mobile browser their site renders without any Flash content at all. That is a huge exodus from the norm was before the iPhone came along. Now we sites offering an option for Flash or HTML5 for video in a just a few short months. And the newest poster child for the ultimate Flash site, Farmville, is now going with a Xcode app to connect its users.
Each of these fronts needs to be dealt with as a separate issue because one loss for Flash on a single front doesn't mean a loss for Flash as a whole, but it does show that Flash is vulnerable and it is showing a trend. I don't know what other evidence is needed to see that Flash is no longer the only option to deliver rich content to users via the internet.
Comments
Half the CPU usage (Gala vs 10.1) is nice, but some testers were actually doing better than browser HTML5 performance.. So there are definitely a lot of variables at work.
For streaming H.264 video? I doubt that, but I'm open to some proof of that.
Canvas isn't a good test for this because it's still in a proof-of-concept phase, not ready to be used even though supported by all major browsers. We need WebGL in place but most importantly we need rich development tools that make coding for Canvas as easy as coding for rich animation in Flash. This is the very last hold out for Flash and one that it will not give up easily or quickly. Like HTML5, Flash has many facets and nothing will best Flash on that front for the foreseeable future.
This the most important part of everything you said. Young people are the future, not you or your perspective on things.
The future already looks bleak from my perspective.
Canvas isn't a good test for this because it's still in a proof-of-concept phase, not ready to be used even though supported by all major browsers.
One of the main reasons that Canvas is not a suitable replacement for Flash is that to animate anything, the entire canvas must be redrawn. You cannot embed a canvas within a canvas either. But with Flash you can animate small portions of the screen such as roll over buttons while the rest of the screen is doing something else. Flash is built from objects that can relate to one another, while a canvas is a discreet object to itself. Depending on the application, having independent related objects can save a tremendous amount of processor work.
With Flash however, there will always be a performance hit simply because it is a plug in and not compiled into the browser.
Why because -you say so? pffffffft. ok anonymous dude on a forum. LOL.
you're simply listing a handful of major sites. All sites, that never used flash for video at a time flash still was dominate in the interactive world and enjoyed 98% plugin penetration.
I think you're getting excited over a flurry of press releases, and I can understand why...
However, if you simply see flash a method of video delivery, well that would explain your confusion.
Whooosh..... There go those goalposts.
Originally, you said that Flash use was growing by leaps and bounds. When I pointed out just a sampling of major sites that are creating non-Flash sites, you back up to claim that none of those sites used Flash FOR VIDEO.
The funny thing is that even with your attempt to reframe the discussion, your'e wrong. Youtube used to be 100% Flash and is now offering html 5 for video.
Face it. People are abandoning Flash left and right. Whether you like it or not.
But don't worry, Adobe still has lots of money. You'll probably get paid for all your work as a shill for Flash.
One of the main reasons that Canvas is not a suitable replacement for Flash is that to animate anything, the entire canvas must be redrawn. You cannot embed a canvas within a canvas either. But with Flash you can animate small portions of the screen such as roll over buttons while the rest of the screen is doing something else. Flash is built from objects that can relate to one another, while a canvas is a discreet object to itself. Depending on the application, having independent related objects can save a tremendous amount of processor work.
HTML5 is a better development framework for mobile devices. Web services are recognizing where things are going and responding to the reality.
Face it. People are abandoning Flash left and right. Whether you like it or not.
That is why canvas is still a proof of concept and not a fully deployed technology.
Maybe but the the current proposal is very definitive about the complete redraw requirement.
HTML5 is a better development framework for mobile devices. Web services are recognizing where things are going and responding to the reality.
And everyone would happily follow if there were easy ways to develop these technologies but abstracted javascript frameworks is not the solution because everyone and their brother has one and they are all different and incompatible with one another.
Whooosh..... There go those goalposts.
Originally, you said that Flash use was growing by leaps and bounds. When I pointed out just a sampling of major sites that are creating non-Flash sites, you back up to claim that none of those sites used Flash FOR VIDEO.
The funny thing is that even with your attempt to reframe the discussion, your'e wrong. Youtube used to be 100% Flash and is now offering html 5 for video.
Face it. People are abandoning Flash left and right. Whether you like it or not.
But don't worry, Adobe still has lots of money. You'll probably get paid for all your work as a shill for Flash.
what is with some of you that simply can't read a post???
Point out where I said those sites don't use flash for video, currently. Come on, spit it out. I made reference to the fact that at one time those site didn't use it, because flash didn't have the ability to have video...
Of course those examples were mostly major sites who WERE using flash for video and are now using another method of delivery! The point was, since flash is mainly an application development and interactive platform, this isn't -that- big a deal. But I guess that was a little too much to figure out. The line where I said those sites -weren't- using it for video, was to illustrate that at one time not very long ago, flash did not have the ability to run .flv files at all, and all those sites didn't use flash video (since it didn't exist), and flash -still-, dominated at 98% penetration rate. Holy moses this is not... rocket science!
Please learn to read first k?
And everyone would happily follow if there were easy ways to develop these technologies but abstracted javascript frameworks is not the solution because everyone and their brother has one and they are all different and incompatible with one another.
Of course those examples were mostly major sites who WERE using flash for video and are now using another method of delivery! The point was, since flash is mainly an application development and interactive platform, this isn't -that- big a deal.
personal attack removed - Mr. H
The fact that sites that used to use Flash exclusively are moving away from Flash IS THE ENTIRE DEAL. That's what the discussion is all about - in spite of your incessant attempts to change the subject.
All we heard for months was that there were so many things that REQUIRED Flash and now all these sites are doing exactly the same things without it (Hulu, Youtube, CBS, NY Times, Farmville, etc, etc, etc). Your repeated claims that nothing could replace Flash were just wrong. Your current claim that noone is leaving Flash is not only wrong, but it's laughably wrong.
That's true in the long run. But for right now Webkit dominates the mobile web. So its not as much of a problem.
Maybe so but it has no relevance with regard to which browser you target, it is just very tedious to write pure JS without a framework but still the cleanest and most legible. That is what I prefer. But the frameworks can speed things up a bit.
Apple seems to prefer prototype and scriptaculous, some of the older well established frameworks but that sort of like choosing between .net and php. It doesn't matter as long as you don't try mixing them. Some like Dojo, or jquery, Spry, etc. They all write Webkit compatible code. They are all just different. If you are planning to get fancy with the CSS then you need to use the browser prefixes anyway.
And by the way, mobile web accounts for only around 1% of all web traffic so it isn't a huge market.
Really? You're arguing for Flash and you use a test comparing Flash to Canvas to say that all HTML5 is bad? You are absurdly dense or you are getting paid by Adobe to spread FUD... You can't refute that, but go ahead and try; earn your shill money for the day.
Thanks, solipsism. I watched your video... quite clear. Also, I've checked and "gotapple" is gone (for the moment)... shilling on other threads or sites.
The fact that sites that used to use Flash exclusively are moving away from Flash IS THE ENTIRE DEAL. That's what the discussion is all about - in spite of your incessant attempts to change the subject.
All we heard for months was that there were so many things that REQUIRED Flash and now all these sites are doing exactly the same things without it (Hulu, Youtube, CBS, NY Times, Farmville, etc, etc, etc). Your repeated claims that nothing could replace Flash were just wrong. Your current claim that noone is leaving Flash is not only wrong, but it's laughably wrong.
No one is attempting to change the subject. You are attempting to make the subject about delivery of video and nothing else, and in the process you are entirely missing the point of Groovetube's arguments. I suggest you go back and read his posts over and over until you get it. Flash is not just about video delivery, in fact it is only relatively recently in the context of its lifetime that Flash has been able to deliver video.
For all the things that Flash does apart from video, there is (sadly) currently no big exodus from Flash. If a small business goes to a web-developing-house to buy a website, you can bet that 90% of the time they'll be given a website that uses Flash, along with all the usability problems highlighted in my post I linked to earlier.
No one is attempting to change the subject. You are attempting to make the subject about delivery of video and nothing else, and in the process you are entirely missing the point of Groovetube's arguments. I suggest you go back and read his posts over and over until you get it. Flash is not just about video delivery, in fact it is only relatively recently in the context of its lifetime that Flash has been able to deliver video.
For all the things that Flash does apart from video, there is (sadly) currently no big exodus from Flash.
No? So Farmville is all about video? CBS? NYTimes?
What about all those automaker's web sites that used to be 100% Flash - but are now accessible on iPhones?
Or what about Disney.com?
No? So Farmville is all about video? CBS? NYTimes?
What about all those automaker's web sites that used to be 100% Flash - but are now accessible on iPhones?
Or what about Disney.com?
You appear to not have any concept as to the scale of the world wide web.
No? So Farmville is all about video?
Farmville I doubt is leaving Flash. They are going to release an App but that is a tiny fraction of their audience. It will remain on Flash for the regular desktop.
Farmville I doubt is leaving Flash. They are going to release an App but that is a tiny fraction of their audience. It will remain on Flash for the regular desktop.
That may be true.
What does it have to do with the oft-repeated argument that Apple needed to support Flash because Flash was so essential to modern computing?
personal attack removed - Mr. H
The fact that sites that used to use Flash exclusively are moving away from Flash IS THE ENTIRE DEAL. That's what the discussion is all about - in spite of your incessant attempts to change the subject.
All we heard for months was that there were so many things that REQUIRED Flash and now all these sites are doing exactly the same things without it (Hulu, Youtube, CBS, NY Times, Farmville, etc, etc, etc). Your repeated claims that nothing could replace Flash were just wrong. Your current claim that noone is leaving Flash is not only wrong, but it's laughably wrong.
it is, apparently, to you.
But you don't seem to realize that:
1) flash was the dominant interactive tool -before- it even had the ability to even do video, video was simply a feature added much later. WHich did indeed get used a lot. It still does what it did without video very well, not only that, it has progressed extremely rapidly. Mac platform player suckage notwithstanding. That's a fact.
2) flash is a full application development platform with a very powerful programming language which is now in it's 3rd complete overhaul. It'
s capabilities and what it's used for, leaves video, in the dust. It simply cannot be compared to something like real player. That's silly.
I'll say it again. If flash dies, it won't be html5 or the video tag that does it.
No one is attempting to change the subject. You are attempting to make the subject about delivery of video and nothing else, and in the process you are entirely missing the point of Groovetube's arguments. I suggest you go back and read his posts over and over until you get it. Flash is not just about video delivery, in fact it is only relatively recently in the context of its lifetime that Flash has been able to deliver video.
For all the things that Flash does apart from video, there is (sadly) currently no big exodus from Flash. If a small business goes to a web-developing-house to buy a website, you can bet that 90% of the time they'll be given a website that uses Flash, along with all the usability problems highlighted in my post I linked to earlier.
I think it can easily be argued that Flash for video streaming is the most used and useful feature of this tech for the last decade. It allowed for cross browser and OS video playback after the fall of Real when MS had crippled browser development and Firefox was slowly forging a path for open standards.
There is clear evidence that Flash for video is being dropped in favour of other avenues. This shows that Flash's hold isn't absolute despite their installed base. Groovetube keeps changing his argument, whether he realizes it or not. He makes a blanket statement and then when he's called out on it he falls back into an area that Flash is clearly dominate and has no threat for the foreseeable future to remake his point.
The fact is, Flash is having problems on multiple fronts. It's one thing to defend against one attack, but when you have ads being delivered by webcode instead of Flash because too many people are using ad blockers; when you have MS pushing Silverlight hard which is why Adobe finally added HW acceleration and H.264 in the first place; when video streaming is being added to HTML5 making even HW decoded Flash content pale in comparison; when you have simple graphics being made easily with HTML, CSS and JS; when you have a surge of smartphones about to outpace PC sales all running full web browsers that can't support Flash and when they do finally support it won't be optimized for most of the Flash apps due to the relatively anemic ARM processors and touch-screen controls; and cheap native apps being made for these smartphones that make for a better UX over Flash apps, I have to wonder if Adobe can defend Flash on these fronts. I don't think they can. I don't think anyone could.
It's going to take a long time for Flash to fall, but when people think of fast and efficient code for your smartphone it won't be Flash they'll be thinking of. Right now, I can think of plenty of sites that use Flash when using a desktop browser, but if you change your User Agent to a mobile browser their site renders without any Flash content at all. That is a huge exodus from the norm was before the iPhone came along. Now we sites offering an option for Flash or HTML5 for video in a just a few short months. And the newest poster child for the ultimate Flash site, Farmville, is now going with a Xcode app to connect its users.
Each of these fronts needs to be dealt with as a separate issue because one loss for Flash on a single front doesn't mean a loss for Flash as a whole, but it does show that Flash is vulnerable and it is showing a trend. I don't know what other evidence is needed to see that Flash is no longer the only option to deliver rich content to users via the internet.