or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Flash, HTML 5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Flash, HTML 5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage

post #1 of 156
Thread Starter 
A comparison of streaming video via the Adobe Flash and HTML5 formats with numerous different browsers on both Mac and Windows produced wildly different results based on the operating system and browser, making neither a clear winner.

The test, from Streaming Learning Center, was conducted in response to recent comments alleged to have been said by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, in which he reportedly called Flash a "CPU hog." While the test found that HTML5 is significantly more efficient than Flash on the Mac when running the Safari Web browser, those same advantages do not exist on other Mac browsers, or in Windows.

"It's inaccurate to conclude that Flash is inherently inefficient," author Jan Ozer wrote. "Rather, Flash is efficient on platforms where it can access hardware acceleration and less efficient where it can't. With Flash Player 10.1, Flash has the opportunity for a true leap in video playback performance on all platforms that enable hardware acceleration."

The report noted that Apple has not enabled the hooks to allow GPU-based acceleration for H.264 video decoding. Anand Lai Shimpi, founder of AnandTech, asserted "it's up to Apple to expose the appropriate hooks to allow Adobe to (eventually) enable that functionality."

Adobe's update to Flash 10.1 on the Mac improved CPU efficiency within Safari by 5 percent, but the Web format still trails far behind HTML5 due to hardware acceleration. With Google Chrome, neither were particularly efficient, and Firefox saw slightly better performance than Chrome.



On Windows, Apple's Safari browser doesn't play HTML 5 content. But the Google Chrome browser in Windows played Flash 10.1 content with 58 percent more efficiency than HTML5.

HTML5 is not natively supported in Firefox or Internet Explorer, but the update from Flash 10 to Flash 10.1 improved CPU performance for the browsers by 73 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Flash 10.1 in Windows offers added hardware acceleration.

"When it comes to efficient video playback, the ability to access hardware acceleration is the single most important factor in the overall CPU load," Streaming Learning Center noted. "On Windows, where Flash can access hardware acceleration, the CPU requirements drop to negligible levels.

"It seems reasonable to assume that if the Flash Player could access GPU-based hardware acceleration on the Mac (or iPod/iPhone/iPad), the difference between the CPU required for HTML5 playback and Flash playback would be very much narrowed, if not eliminated."



Google added support for the most popular video destination on the Internet, YouTube, in January. The beta opt-in program is available only for browsers that support both HTML5 and H.264 video encoding.

Scrutiny over Flash has grown in recent months since Apple introduced its multimedia iPad device, which does not support the Web format from Adobe. Apple, instead, has placed its support behind HTML5.

For more on why Apple isn't likely to add support for Flash in the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.
post #2 of 156
HTML5 shows significantly better performance, over Flash, on a Mac.

So why would anyone want Flash over HTML5?
post #3 of 156
Ironically, Safari/Mac with Flash 10.1 (not HW accelerated) is almost as efficient as IE/Win with Flash 10.1 (HW accelerated). Safari uses 32.07% CPU, while IE uses 14.62*2 = 29.24% CPU.

(For those unfamiliar with both platforms, OS X measures CPU usage such that "one core = 100%", while Windows measure CPU usage such that "all available cores = 100%").
post #4 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

While the test found that HTML5 is significantly more efficient than Flash on the Mac when running the Safari Web browser, those same advantages do not exist on other Mac browsers, or in Windows.

The main stink is Flash on mobile devices. Flash on desktops is bad enough. I find it a bit odd as to why the discussion is flash on the desktop. Efficient or not, full PC's can handle Flash. Stability is another issue.

Why isn't there a comparison between HTML5 on the iPhone vs. Flash on Android or something? It's mobile platforms that's making the most noise.
post #5 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

HTML5 shows significantly better performance, over Flash, on a Mac.

So why would anyone want Flash over HTML5?

Perhaps because

1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better
2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?

The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #6 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

HTML5 shows significantly better performance, over Flash, on a Mac.

So why would anyone want Flash over HTML5?

Not everyone's on a Mac
post #7 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The report noted that Apple has not enabled the hooks to allow GPU-based acceleration for H.264 video decoding.

Apple provide access to the Quicktime framework. Adobe just wants direct access to the hardware, and there is no reason for that other than to introduce security holes and instability. If they would be willing to stick with the proper API than they wouldn't have such a preformance problem (with video anyway).
post #8 of 156
We should post this guy's results over at WindowsInsider.com.

If most crashes are related to poorly-written drivers, then the last place I want want Flash to have it's hooks is into the OSX kernel. Which is what Adobe is really asking for...

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #9 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Not everyone's on a Mac

I thought this was APPLEinsider...
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
post #10 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Perhaps because

1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better
2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?

The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...

-Clive

The less content argument is stupid and false. Theres no lack of content on the iDevices. I can find all the web apps, h.264 videos, and App Store apps I could ever want.
post #11 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...

We'll see when Flash arrives on Android phones and the battery life only lasts 30 minutes or an hour...

Windows users... Sheesh!

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #12 of 156
There are times and places for Flash and there are times and places for HTML5 in terms of presenting web content. But will one of them be completely overcome by the other and done away with for good in the future?
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
post #13 of 156
While CPU usage is one factor, I'd like to see memory usage and overall browser stability comparisons as well.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #14 of 156
First the way I see it a Mac with HTML 5 supported video is doing pretty damn good. to get similar performance with flash requires leveraging all the computing resources available on the platform. now someone explain to me how Flash using all those resources to maintain parity with HTML 5 native video play back is an advantage or even a good thing.

Allied with that is that fact that Flash video is only part of it performance killing problem. I've logged onto sites with no Flash video playing that killed performance on my MBP. In fact experiences like that made me a big believer in Click to Flash. You can't pick and choose facts to justify your position, the whole impact of the software has to be taken into account. Frankly I've seen similar performance degradation on Windows machines. So lets not give to much credit to this smear campaign that tries to pick and choose what features to benchmark and then tries to twist the data in a gross manner.

As to hooks for GPU acceleration, maybe the people doing this report haven't heard of OpenCL. Yes I know it isn't the perfect solution to a solution to movie playback when hardware specifically for that exists, but it may very well be a better long term solution. Apple is putting a lot of support behind OpenCL so it isn't going to go away. Further Apple already supports OpenCL on more GPU's than it does GPU specific video acceleration hardware. In the end I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe is behind this report, it just seems like the data is being bent to support their position.

IF that is the case Adobe isn't doing themselves any favors. Flash has already gotten a reputation as a poor program on the Mac platform and justifiable so. This is just another sad example of trying to use marketing to fix technical issues with your products. That is trying to make people believe that your software isn't crap through manipulation and seeding half truths. What is funny here is that this is about Flash but yesterday I read an article about Adobe Reader being the new target of the virus writing crowd. This due to all the exploitable security issues there.


Dave
post #15 of 156
Quote:
While the test found that HTML5 is significantly more efficient than Flash on the Mac when running the Safari Web browser, those same advantages do not exist on other Mac browsers, or in Windows.

html 5 is still being tweaked (working draft stage) and want be implemented until 2012 at earliest. So when the browser start implementing you will see the numbers similar to safari or better.
post #16 of 156
You will start to see more and more of these kind of articles over the next few months.

Mainly thanks to lazy "webmasters" and not wanting to "loose" any revenue from their site when they change to NON flash.

Mind you there are always other ways around this but people are inherently lazy. Why must you have to change something when close enough is good enough (hey it worked for MS for years )
post #17 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

HTML5 shows significantly better performance, over Flash, on a Mac.

So why would anyone want Flash over HTML5?

Silly!!

196% of the top 10 zillion web sites ALL use flash and it ALWAYS for really really really important stuff and not just super annoying web site ADs and porn-games like you might be thinking... In fact the entire backbone AND ribcage of the interweb is totally dependent on Flash and if you don't believe me just as Al Gore!

And most important... If Flash were to disappear Jesus would cry! Do you **really** want to be a party to THAT? I think not!
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #18 of 156
Try looking at major web site with clicktoflash on and you will often see invisible flash boxes over the top of places you are supposed to click. They ate created to intercept your click and load ads. Even if all things were equal Flash is being abused so badly it is reason enough to switch it off.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #19 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Perhaps because

1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better
2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?

The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...

-Clive

I agree with #1 but disagree with #2. I don't know about you but I'll take battery life. Believe it or not people actually use their smartphones as phones first. I'd also take stability and apps after that. Bring able to view all kinds of videos is always a plus but there are more important things than Flash.

BTW did it ever occur to you that Apple actually believes that Flash would be bad for the iPhone instead of believing there is some sinister plot at hand?
post #20 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmig View Post

Ironically, Safari/Mac with Flash 10.1 (not HW accelerated) is almost as efficient as IE/Win with Flash 10.1 (HW accelerated). Safari uses 32.07% CPU, while IE uses 14.62*2 = 29.24% CPU.

(For those unfamiliar with both platforms, OS X measures CPU usage such that "one core = 100%", while Windows measure CPU usage such that "all available cores = 100%").

The article was not very clear on the procedure used with respect to that percentage issue.

On dual core for example Mac full CPU usage = 200% where full usage on Windows is 100%

So maybe my math is faulty or the data needs adjusting but it makes Flash look even less of a CPU hog.

I think one of the things that you hear a lot is that as soon as you click on a Flash element you hear the hard drive and the fans come on. That could be because you are running Click2Flash which is blocking the plugin. When you click it the plugin launches. This behavior is different if the plugin loads when the browser is launched without Click2Flash. In the later case you don't sense the ramp of launch on click, making it much less noticeable.

But with all the ads you have to run Click2Flash.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #21 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5.

That's actually not true. What most people don't know is that Flash video is H.264. It's the same encoded string of bytes sitting on a hard drive someplace. The only difference is that Flash uses its own software component to decode and play back that string of bytes, while HTML 5's implementation of the video tag uses the native operating system's H.264 playback.

That's how Youtube was able to flip a switch and enable HTML 5; they don't have to reencode anything. It's the same bytes, just played back by the operating system instead of a crappy and unnecessary browser plug-in.

Quote:
The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement.

I've said this on another thread here, but I'll repeat myself: Adobe doesn't get to unilaterally declare that Flash is "part of the Internet." To the extent that the word "Internet" has any useful meaning at all, it refers to a set of standardized protocols that anybody can implement and use. Flash doesn't meet that definition.

Flash is not part of "the whole Internet." Flash is merely Internet-adjacent.
post #22 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"it's up to Apple to expose the appropriate hooks to allow Adobe to (eventually) enable that functionality."

They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

The main stink is Flash on mobile devices. Flash on desktops is bad enough. I find it a bit odd as to why the discussion is flash on the desktop. Efficient or not, full PC's can handle Flash.

Exactly! That is one of two main issues with Flash on the iPhone. The other is navigation on a Flash site with your fingers.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #23 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.

Demo in 2006 release in October 2007

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #24 of 156
If you look at Jan Ozer's background, he makes his living doing seminars on Flash and other Adobe products. He is not impartial, and I would view the study in that light. For more light on the subject, check out the comment feed (not the article, as it is quite biased) at http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives..._new_tests.php
post #25 of 156
It looks like Safari has a better implementation of HTML 5 video then the other browser. Safari HTML5 video completely blows all the other combinations away.

That is only one aspect to the Flash problem though. HTML5 only uses CPU overhead when playing a video. Flash uses CPU overhead when it is just sitting there in a background advertisement (burning that iPad battery away if ran on it).
post #26 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

HTML5 shows significantly better performance, over Flash, on a Mac.

So why would anyone want Flash over HTML5?

Flash shows significantly better performance, over a Mac, on a PC.

So why would anyone want a Mac over a PC?
post #27 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Perhaps because

1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better

Actually it doesn't perform better. That is an important point. The fact that they have gone to GPU acceleration is a real issue, demonstrating that Flash really doesn't perform that well.
Quote:

2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?

Yes and much of that Flash content is virus infused or malware. A good portion of Flash on the internet is there to compromise your system. Of course there are good sites that put Flash to an advantage, but they now have options that should be better long term.

As to battery life that is a very real question. That is why I'd prefer that the user had control of Flash on his portable devices. Click To Flash works really well on my Mac so why not something similar for portable hardware? Well given that the hardware is powerful enough, I simply wouldn't want Flash on my iPhone 3G.

You see there is more to it than just the battery life. My generation iPhone anyways doesn't have the HP to run Flash. It is an issue of both RAM and CPU performance. I haven't looked at a 3GS so I can't comment on that platform.

Quote:

The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...

-Clive

Yeah the war is going to be more of a problem as portable hardware gets more powerful. The iPad is an example of a platform that is likely to be able to benefit from Flash. I say likely because we still know very little about A4 and the amount of system RAM on the device.

The thing is after a couple of years working with my 3G I'm convinced Apple did the right thing keeping Flash off it. The platform is slow and laggy enough right now, running another interpreter would not be a smart thing at all. The coming next gen iPhone of he iPad are likely to be different stories. The smart thing here is to let the consumer decide when the pay off to enabling Flash is worth the risk. Because there is risk every time you startup Flash.


Dave
post #28 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.



Exactly! That is one of two main issues with Flash on the iPhone. The other is navigation on a Flash site with your fingers.

Flash 10.1 beta, in Mac Safari, does use Core Animation, and just look at the numbers... poorer than HTML5.
post #29 of 156
Seems to me it's not really about performance. Its about transparency, openness and security. I'll take native rather than Flash playback for my videos, thanks.
BTW Streaming Learning Center? Do they have an agenda? Seems like it from the way they structured their "study."
post #30 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

The less content argument is stupid and false. Theres no lack of content on the iDevices. I can find all the web apps, h.264 videos, and App Store apps I could ever want.

Yeah! Why should we accept what the word "less" means? It can mean anything we say it means!
post #31 of 156
Quote:
"It seems reasonable to assume that if the Flash Player could access GPU-based hardware acceleration on the Mac (or iPod/iPhone/iPad), the difference between the CPU required for HTML5 playback and Flash playback would be very much narrowed, if not eliminated."

I think that is Job's (alleged) point. It seems reasonable, but it isn't being done. Xcode is free to download and available for adobe to use. All the objective C frameworks are in place to access the hardware.

The big question is why doesn't Adobe stop being lazy and start being progressive like they used to in the past. I yawned when I saw the CS3 to CS4 feature changes. Same story on flash. No improvements and only overload added.
post #32 of 156
The one flash game I played, briefly, recently was Portal, and would not have translated at all to the iPad due to lack of a mouse and keyboard.

Everything else I see beneath my Click2Flash cloak of awesome is either an advert or an embedded Video. Now as the adverts outnumber embedded videos I actually want to watch (that I can't watch in HTML5) by a factor of at least 100-1 I think I'm happy without Flash.

Imagine a worst situation. Flash on the iPad without the ability to turn it off... *shudder*

As a web developer by trade I've learned to harbour a deep and seething hatred for Flash. I've seen some excellent things done with it, but they've invariably been either useless eye-candy curiosities, Flow or 2d Portal.
post #33 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.



Exactly! That is one of two main issues with Flash on the iPhone. The other is navigation on a Flash site with your fingers.

There wouldn't be a one-to-one relationship between flash and core animation. They do expose OpenGL (that Core Animation is based on) though. Apple of course supports CSS3 Animation as an alternative to Flash which was designed to be very similar to the basic features of Core Animation. CSS Animation can be used with the Canvas tag that was designed to be a simplified version of Quartz. Basically, Safari and Firefox have Core Animation light built right in to the HTML standard.
post #34 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Perhaps because

1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better
2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?

The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...

-Clive

Uh no the 90% figure is a dream figure as Windows is heavily entrenched in the server room were Flash would be used at a front end at best if at all.

It's not abouit picking bettery battery life versus content. Flash is simply a container for multimedia content. There are other options in many cases which is why Apple is chosing a different path.

"Full Internet" LOL. Stop reading tripe from marketers. Flash doesn't signal full or half internet. In fact if we look at the origin of the internet technolog like Flash (proprietary) is an anathema to what guys like Tim Berners-Lee designed.

Apple is in fact looking at my best interest because they are working to keep the Internet free from proprietary HTML tags, proprietary encoding methods (Silverlight, Flash etc). HTML5 doesn't cost you $$$ to utilize and consumers always love a good price.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #35 of 156
There was life before Flash and HTML5 video too. Remember we used to have to select Quicktime or WMV from a list...
post #36 of 156
There is a huge difference on the back end. Adobe Flash costs $699 and has code in it back from the Windows 3.1 days. HTML 5 is free and current.
post #37 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Flash shows significantly better performance, over a Mac, on a PC.

So why would anyone want a Mac over a PC?

Not better than HTML5.

Thats the point, troll boy.
post #38 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfoolery View Post

I've said this on another thread here, but I'll repeat myself: Adobe doesn't get to unilaterally declare that Flash is "part of the Internet." To the extent that the word "Internet" has any useful meaning at all, it refers to a set of standardized protocols that anybody can implement and use. Flash doesn't meet that definition.

Flash is not part of "the whole Internet." Flash is merely Internet-adjacent.

I am SOOOOOO glad we're past that stage in the Internet when everyone had to write non-compliant code so that their site would work on Internet Explorer 6 perfectly but in another browser would likely crap out.

This stinks of the same reasoning. C'mon, if Microsoft can adjust to web standards, why the hell can't Adobe? Web Standards. Non-proprierity. Not locked in.

Wouldn't that be something?
post #39 of 156
Does anyone else find it funny that Safari, on Windows, does better with Flash than IE?
post #40 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfoolery View Post



I've said this on another thread here, but I'll repeat myself: Adobe doesn't get to unilaterally declare that Flash is "part of the Internet." To the extent that the word "Internet" has any useful meaning at all, it refers to a set of standardized protocols that anybody can implement and use. Flash doesn't meet that definition.

Flash is not part of "the whole Internet." Flash is merely Internet-adjacent.

Yes. When Joe Shmoe goes to a flash internet site, and it will not work, he realizes right away that Flash is not part of the whole internet. And as we all know, only geeks care about watching video adjacent to the internet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Flash, HTML 5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage