or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple highlights interactive capabilities of HTML5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple highlights interactive capabilities of HTML5 - Page 7

post #241 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Not saying you are lying. By your own admission you had 20 different things going on at the same time. We have no way of knowing the quality of the Flash code, any other conflicts, or user error might have been involved. Just way too many variables for any valid conclusions. Clearly your personal bias against Flash is not going to lend itself to a fair evaluation either. Just try my sample code above if you think stupid programming can't exist in HTML 5 as well.

AIR, the Flash windows were open to run YouTube videos at FullScreen (Click2Flash only offered h.264 at actual size). I am pretty sure of that, as I don't enable (allow Flash to load) for much else.

The point is with Safari windows/tabs open and not loading... there isn't much CPU usage going on.

With a Flash window open, but not running or loading, there often (if not usually) is significant CPU usage... in my experience, on the Mac.

I don't know if this is poor programming or memory leaks, interpreter overhead, garbage collection, event sniffing... I don't know, but something is definitely going on!

P.S. Just because you assert that you are a scientist does not necessarily mean that you are disciplined, thorough or objective... it just implies such.

On a forum such as this, your "facts" are as good as mine!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #242 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Transparency is the killer for HTML 5 and Flash. Because transparency is such an easy thing to do in Flash and the results are visually pleasing, you see it everywhere. The power required to add the shadowBlur and render the underlying objects while animating the top layer is where the whole thing goes south.

yup, exactly. One good reason why if I do something in flash, or anything else for that matter, I try to avoid alpha tweens or anything involving heavy blurred shadows etc. I'll use any trick in the book besides.

I certainly don't want to excuse the crimes of adobe's mac flash plugin, but, one needs to keep things in perspective about the fact that regardless of the tool, certain things are very cpu intensives regardless of the delivery method, and there's going to be reams of developers who will code badly to take out your browser.

Is there going to be a huge outcry over html5 if that gets out of control and is annoying the crap out of users with flying ads too? (remember animated gifs....)
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #243 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Transparency is the killer for HTML 5 and Flash. Because transparency is such an easy thing to do in Flash and the results are visually pleasing, you see it everywhere. The power required to add the shadowBlur and render the underlying objects while animating the top layer is where the whole thing goes south.

Why, do you suppose that is?

Isn't ActionScript very similar to JavaScript?

Aren't both interpreted?

Don't the latest versions of each use some sort of JIT interpretation/compilation?

Is this (Transparency) just an isolated instance where Flash excels?

Could it be due to the relative maturity of implementations of Flash vs HTML5?

Do you see any reason why HTML5 cannot eventually equal or exceed the Flash implementation?

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #244 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

On a forum such as this, your "facts" are as good as mine!

Which is why I provided some code that can be independently verified. In science that is what we do. You publish your findings and provide a means for the experiment to be duplicated by others. That way there is no personal bias clouding the issues.

Provide some Flash code that will spike my browser. I will analyze it and try to determine what is causing the problem.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #245 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Is this (Transparency) just an isolated instance where Flash excels?


Flash doesn't excel. They both suffer from the same issues when it comes to rendering animated transparency. More power is the only solution.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #246 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I'll use any trick in the book besides.

Love that book.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #247 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Do you see any reason why HTML5 cannot eventually equal or exceed the Flash implementation?

HTML 5 is already faster than Flash. The primary reason is that HTML is being processed by features of the browser itself and Flash is processed by a plugin. You can compare that to the way php compiled into Apache httpd is faster than php loaded as an extension.

HTML 5, JS, CSS are like the children of Safari and the Flash plugin is the hired help who speaks some other language. A translation is involved for Flash to communicate with Safari which creates additional overhead and delay.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #248 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Mmm... It does significantly degrade performance. With only that one window open It spiked CPU at 91%...

His example is complete bollocks. It's a Canvas example, that is only small feature of HTML5, that is newer and less developed, that doesn't WebGL incorporated yet, and that he designed to push your CPU just for the sake of pushing your CPU. But, from that example we are supposed to say that the entirety of HTML5 is bad and Flash is the future?
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 #249 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Which is why I provided some code that can be independently verified. In science that is what we do. You publish your findings and provide a means for the experiment to be duplicated by others. That way there is no personal bias clouding the issues.

Provide some Flash code that will spike my browser. I will analyze it and try to determine what is causing the problem.

As you should understand that is a bit more difficult. What spikes my browser are applications/movies written in Flash. I do not have source code to these. Further, while I can overload the system to cause Flash to spike, that would provide little enlightenment.

I could disable Click2Flash, and likely, after a few hours the CPU would spike, Safari would hang, or the plugin task would crash. I would post the details to Apple (and I do), But I wouldn't have anything tangible to provide to you other than to copy/paste the reported status/details and email them to you.

I can say this, After installing Click2Flash and preventing automatic loading of Flash.(with an occasional override for a specific video)-- i have very few problems with Flash. Before, i could expect several hangs or crashes per week.

My goal is not to Debug Flash, rather to utilize the web for my own purposes, When it is convenient, or when I want to back up an assertion, I'll make an extra*effort (send the crash info to Apple or document CPU usage).

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #250 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

HTML 5 is already faster than Flash. The primary reason is that HTML is being processed by features of the browser itself and Flash is processed by a plugin. You can compare that to the way php compiled into Apache httpd is faster than php loaded as an extension.

HTML 5, JS, CSS are like the children of Safari and the Flash plugin is the hired help who speaks some other language. A translation is involved for Flash to communicate with Safari which creates additional overhead and delay.

Very cogent answers!

Thanks!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #251 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

His example is complete bollocks. It's a Canvas example, that is only small feature of HTML5, that is newer and less developed, that doesn't WebGL incorporated yet, and that he designed to push your CPU just for the sake of pushing your CPU. But, from that example we are supposed to say that the entirety of HTML5 is bad and Flash is the future?

Mmmm... from what he said I didn't infer that HTML5 was bad and Flash was good!

I find your comment on WebGL interesting, though.

I assume that you mean that in the future, HTML5 will support a form of OpenGL and, that, in implementing that, it will take advantage of GPU hardware when available.

Flash could certainly do this too, if the OS permits access to the APIs and hardware.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #252 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

His example is complete bollocks. It's a Canvas example, that is only small feature of HTML5, that is newer and less developed, that doesn't WebGL incorporated yet, and that he designed to push your CPU just for the sake of pushing your CPU. But, from that example we are supposed to say that the entirety of HTML5 is bad and Flash is the future?

You are just trying to stir up some controversy. I said nothing of the sort and you know it. If you would point to specific errors in my posts I will try to either clarify them or stand corrected and admit to the error.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #253 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I said nothing of the sort and you know it. If you would point to specific errors in my posts I will try to either clarify them or stand corrected and admit to the error.

You're right, I woke up and read your comment and test Canvas before I had my coffee. The point is, Canvas should never be used to show how poor HTML5 performance is as it's a single aspect of HTML5. It's still being built so until there are development tools for it without HW Acceleration in place and sites are actively using it for more than a demo it's not a good measure of anything. it's irrelevant. The single most important aspect of Flash on the web today is video and this is considerably more costly on Flash than it is in HTML5. That's relevant.
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 #254 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You're right, I woke up and read your comment and test Canvas before I had my coffee. The point is, Canvas should never be used to show how poor HTML5 performance is as it's a single aspect of HTML5. It's still being built so until there are development tools for it without HW Acceleration in place and sites are actively using it for more than a demo it's not a good measure of anything. it's irrelevant. The single most important aspect of Flash on the web today is video and this is considerably more costly on Flash than it is in HTML5. That's relevant.


My one and only point is that stupid programmers can ruin even the best delivery platform. And when that happens the outcry is that the platform is at fault. That is why Apple tries to keep such a tight grip on what is and is not allowed on the iPhone. It is because if a rogue programmer compromises the device the press will be pointing their finger at Steve Jobs.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #255 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

My one and only point is that stupid programmers can ruin even the best delivery platform. And when that happens the outcry is that the platform is at fault. That is why Apple tries to keep such a tight grip on what is and is not allowed on the iPhone. It is because if a rogue programmer compromises the device the press will be pointing their finger at Steve Jobs.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Adding to that, I have concerns about WebGL. Poor or malicious programmers using HTML and JS to get more direct access to HW. I can see a potential for this being abused.
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 #256 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

I wonder if Apple's latest stunt will spur a wave of browser-blocking antics across the internet:

First, proponents of open standards will block Safari browsers from their websites in protest of Apple. Apple haters will start doing the same thing and block Safari browsers from their sites.

With fewer than 5% of web users bothering with Safari there's no need to block it, it's lack of appeal has already taken care of that.
post #257 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

His example is complete bollocks. It's a Canvas example, that is only small feature of HTML5, that is newer and less developed, that doesn't WebGL incorporated yet, and that he designed to push your CPU just for the sake of pushing your CPU. But, from that example we are supposed to say that the entirety of HTML5 is bad and Flash is the future?

I think it's Safari; Safari 4.0.5 on Win7 uses up 25% of my CPU (Core i5-750) on that example, and doesn't even run it smoothly (motion blur set to 1000), whereas Chrome 6.0 dev only uses about 10% and runs as smooth as silk. (motion blur also at 1000).

I just tried the latest nightly of Webkit, and it doesn't do any better. I could try it on my Mac, but I know it will run like crap (it's an old C2D).

It may be a newer part of HTML5, but if Apple needs GPU acceleration to do canvas, they're doing it wrong.
post #258 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The single most important aspect of Flash on the web today is video and this is considerably more costly on Flash than it is in HTML5. That's relevant.

Costly in what way?

Because if by "cost" you mean cost, remember that h264 isn't free.

Sure, Steve likes to point out that it currently has no *license* fees, and when spoken exactly like that he's technically correct. But as the patent holder of h264, Apple expects vendors writing h264 codecs to pay them other fees which are not called "license" fees.

Then in less than five years they start adding in license fees too -- classic bait-n-switch -- so there's a cost now and no way to know how much dependency on h264 is going to cost us in the future.

All we know is that Apple sits on the receiving end of that cash stream.
post #259 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

I think it's Safari; Safari 4.0.5 on Win7 uses up 25% of my CPU (Core i5-750) on that example, and doesn't even run it smoothly (motion blur set to 1000), whereas Chrome 6.0 dev only uses about 10% and runs as smooth as silk. (motion blur also at 1000).

I just tried the latest nightly of Webkit, and it doesn't do any better. I could try it on my Mac, but I know it will run like crap (it's an old C2D).

It may be a newer part of HTML5, but if Apple needs GPU acceleration to do canvas, they're doing it wrong.

The word is that Safari 5 adds the much needed HW acceleration to Safari on Windows. I have my doubts as to how well it will help with Canvas, but it's a start.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Costly in what way?

Because if by "cost" you mean cost, remember that h264 isn't free.

Sure, Steve likes to point out that it currently has no *license* fees, and when spoken exactly like that he's technically correct. But as the patent holder of h264, Apple expects vendors writing h264 codecs to pay them other fees which are not called "license" fees.

Then in less than five years they start adding in license fees too -- classic bait-n-switch -- so there's a cost now and no way to know how much dependency on h264 is going to cost us in the future.

All we know is that Apple sits on the receiving end of that cash stream.

Awesome¡ A comment about processing overhead regarding Flash v. HTML5 for video streaming and you jump into a comment about H.264 which is not germane to the topic and is an optional codec for each.
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 #260 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The word is that Safari 5 adds the much needed HW acceleration to Safari on Windows. I have my doubts as to how well it will help with Canvas, but it's a start.



Awesome¡ A comment about processing overhead regarding Flash v. HTML5 for video streaming and you jump into a comment about H.264 which is not germane to the topic and is an optional codec for each.

HTML5 is not a codec.
post #261 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

HTML5 is not a codec.

Yet you are a guy who bought up a codec, that both HTML5 and Flash can use, among other codecs, despite it not being relevant to my comment. It must be hard to be rational when you reading comprehension is such an issue for you.
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 #262 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Yet you are a guy who bought up a codec, that both HTML5 and Flash can use, among other codecs, despite it not being relevant to my comment. It must be hard to be rational when you reading comprehension is such an issue for you.

How does HTML5 play video without paying fees to Apple?

Your screen name appears to have been well chosen.
post #263 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

How does HTML5 play video without paying fees to Apple?

You're implying that by including the HTML5 video tag Apple gets money from MPEG-LA.

You're implying that by including the HTML5 video tag and playing Ogg or VP8 Apple gets money from MPEG-LA.

You're ignoring that Flash, Silverlight and others also use H.264.

You're ignoring H.264 is royalty free until 2016.

Everything you stated that you are now trying to backpedal out of from your initial issue with reading comprehension.
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 #264 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You're ignoring H.264 is royalty free until 2016.

Sure, Steve likes to point out that it currently has no *royalty* fees, and when spoken exactly like that he's technically correct.

Remember, Steve is a very clever man and with so many billions at stake cannot afford to get that wrong. So he doesn't. His words are carefully chosen by an army of lawyers, worded just catchy enough that other parrot them in web forums.

But as a patent holder of h264, Apple expects vendors writing h264 codecs to pay them other fees which are not called "royalty" fees.

Further, in less than five years they start adding in royalty fees too -- classic bait-n-switch -- so there's a cost now and no way to know how much dependency on h264 is going to cost us in the future.

Correct these pages if you have any evidence to the contrary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Patent_licensing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

And like the last time you changed the subject and didn't like the way that turned out for you, here in this thread you're the one who brought up HTML5 video. I'm just pointing out to you that Steve Jobs hasn't been entirely forthcoming about all of the relevant facts, so it really does pay to double-check the details on things like that.
post #265 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Sure, Steve likes to point out that it currently has no *royalty* fees, and when spoken exactly like that he's technically correct.

Remember, Steve is a very clever man and with so many billions at stake cannot afford to get that wrong. So he doesn't. His words are carefully chosen by an army of lawyers, worded just catchy enough that other parrot them in web forums.

But as a patent holder of h264, Apple expects vendors writing h264 codecs to pay them other fees which are not called "royalty" fees.

Further, in less than five years they start adding in royalty fees too -- classic bait-n-switch -- so there's a cost now and no way to know how much dependency on h264 is going to cost us in the future.

Correct these pages if you have any evidence to the contrary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Patent_licensing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

And like the last time you changed the subject and didn't like the way that turned out for you, here in this thread you're the one who brought up HTML5 video. I'm just pointing out to you that Steve Jobs hasn't been entirely forthcoming about all of the relevant facts, so it really does pay to double-check the details on things like that.

Er... I reviewed those 2 links! Please enlighten me to what specifically you find so unsavory!

Specific quotes would be appreciated over generalized links.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #266 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

And like the last time you changed the subject and didn't like the way that turned out for you, here in this thread you're the one who brought up HTML5 video. I'm just pointing out to you that Steve Jobs hasn't been entirely forthcoming about all of the relevant facts, so it really does pay to double-check the details on things like that.

HTML5 video tag H.264 codec

Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?! I never mentioned a particular codec, you did. Seriously, no one here has a problem with you disagreeing with them, but when you switch the subject with each reply you come across as either and idiot or a troll, the latter often applied as the kinder of the two.
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 #267 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

HTML5 video tag H.264 codec

And because the <video> tag has no relationship to codec the video wars continue.

HTML 5 spec only provides these attribute to <video>

autoplay, controls, height, loop, preload, src, width

So do you think IE will support .mov or Safari .avi or either to support .ogg?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #268 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

And because the <video> tag has no relationship to codec the video wars continue.

HTML 5 spec only provides these attribute to <video>

autoplay, controls, height, loop, preload, src, width

That's good. There would be something wrong if they forced codec use to use that aspect of HTML5.

Quote:
So do you think IE will support .mov or Safari .avi or either to support .ogg?

AVI is a poor, outdated container, just like the DiVX codecs are.

I don't expect MS or anyone else to support Apple's MOV container.

MS, Apple, Google, Adobe from OSes to plug-ins to browsers; x86, ARM, Nvidia, ATI and Blu-ray all support H.264, as well as every relevant site support H.264 at various levels so it's here to stay. The only caveat and what was expected when Google bought VP8, was that they were going to make it open source (√), they are going to spend several years developing it into a rival for H.264, but their primary goal is to get MPEG-LA to make H.264 completely royalty free, not to completely usurp it's current dominate position as the best and most used modern codec and cause the industry to completely change again. It's a good move by Google. Either way, they win, so long as they can make VP8 a rel player and make sure they have cut off every viable legal avenue one might take against it.
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 #269 of 320
.

Here is an article worth reading and watching!

It adds a new perspective to the Flash vs HTML5 skirmish.

Here's a little tease, emphasis mine (with the full link below);

Quote:
Very early into Mr. Underkoffler's presentation he uses the Mac OS as the core of his initial point, as follows: The early Macintosh team in '82, '83 '84 had to write an entire new operating system from the ground up. Now this is an interesting little message and it's a lesson that I think has since been forgotten or lost or something and that is namely that the OS is the interface. The interface is the OS. It's like the land and king in Arthur, they're inseparable, they're one. And to write a new operating system wasn't a capricious matter. It wasn't a matter of tuning up some graphics routine - there were no graphic routines. There were no mouse drivers."

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...gins.html#more

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #270 of 320
An interesting post by Chris Blizzard of Mozilla .

He makes a case for why other browser makers are angry about Apple's HTML5 demo. And how he feels Apple is being disingenuous. Some of the features Apple shows are not officially apart of HTML5 and that is the reason why they are not supported by all browsers. From his perspective I can understand much of his point.

At the same time from Apple's perspective Apple would like for these features to officially be apart of HTML5 and widely adopted by all browsers. That is the point of the demonstration.

The other browser makers feel that Apple is undermining the abilities and importance of their browsers. I think Apple is doing that but not quite in the way that they are taking it.

I believe what Apple most wants to show in these demo's is the potential of features and technologies of what they hope HTML5 to become. It does undermine what other browsers are able to do because they don't all support the features that Apple presents.

The over all point is that Apple wants all of these features to be incorporated into HTML5 and for all browsers to support these features.
post #271 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenobell View Post

an interesting post by chris blizzard of mozilla .

He makes a case for why other browser makers are angry about apple's html5 demo. And how he feels apple is being disingenuous. Some of the features apple shows are not officially apart of html5 and that is the reason why they are not supported by all browsers. From his perspective i can understand much of his point.

At the same time from apple's perspective apple would like for these features to officially be apart of html5 and widely adopted by all browsers. That is the point of the demonstration.

The other browser makers feel that apple is undermining the abilities and importance of their browsers. I think apple is doing that but not quite in the way that they are taking it.

I believe what apple most wants to show in these demo's is the potential of features and technologies of what they hope html5 to become. It does undermine what other browsers are able to do because they don't all support the features that apple presents.

The over all point is that apple wants all of these features to be incorporated into html5 and for all browsers to support these features.


+++ qft

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #272 of 320
@ TenoBell

I think your synopsis is dead on.
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 #273 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

AVI is a poor, outdated container,

AVI may have been around for awhile but the quality is still very good. My point is what is going to be the preferred file extension? .m4v, mp4, mpg, mpeg, m4a, h264 etc.? Within that group they each have the ability to be encoded with various codecs. I don't see how we are going to be any better off with the <video> tag than we were with flv. At least everyone supported Flash video.

Now each browser maker has a dog in the race again as far as video is concerned. That was the original problem that caused Flash to win out before.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #274 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

AVI may have been around for awhile but the quality is still very good. My point is what is going to be the preferred file extension? .m4v, mp4, mpg, mpeg, m4a, h264 etc.? Within that group they each have the ability to be encoded with various codecs. I don't see how we are going to be any better off with the <video> tag than we were with flv. At least everyone supported Flash video.

Now each browser maker has a dog in the race again as far as video is concerned. That was the original problem that caused Flash to win out before.

1) Supporting various containers isn't an issue. The issue is getting the codec support. If you have that then the rest is gravy. If a site is oddly using a wonky container with a standard codec that the browser can't understand then it's their fault for going that route.

2) What is "quality" about the AVI container? I hope you aren't confusing the common video codec used with AVIs with the container.

3) Here is what Handbrake, the "open-source, GPL-licensed, multiplatform, multithreaded video transcoder, available for MacOS X, Linux and Windows" has to say about dropping support for AVI and DivX.
As we've had on our roadmap for quite awhile now, one of our goals for version 0.9.4 was to refocus on HandBrake's key strengths and to remove dead weight. As part of this process, several containers and a codec have been removed from HandBrake.

AVI: AVI is a rough beast. It is obsolete. It does not support modern container features like chapters, muxed-in subtitles, variable framerate video, or out of order frame display. Furthermore, HandBrake's AVI muxer is vanilla AVI 1.0 that doesn't even support large files. The code has not been actively maintained since 2005. Keeping it in the library while implementing new features means a very convoluted data pipeline, full of conditionals that make the code more difficult to read and maintain, and make output harder to predict. As such, it is now gone. It is not coming back, and good riddance.

XviD: HandBrake, these days, is almost entirely about H.264 video, aka MPEG-4 Part 10. This makes it rather...superfluous to include two different encoders for an older codec, MPEG-4 Part 2. When choosing between FFmpeg's and XviD's, it came down to a matter of necessity. We need to include libavcodec (FFmpeg) for a bunch of other parts of its API, like decoding. Meanwhile, XviD's build system causes grief (it's the most common support query we get about compiling, after x264's requirement of yasm). Since we mainly use MPEG-4 Part 2 for testing/debugging, and recommend only H.264 for high quality encodes, Xvid's undisputed quality edge over FFmpeg's encoder is inconsequential, while FFmpeg's speed edge over XviD is important to us.
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 #275 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

AVI may have been around for awhile but the quality is still very good. My point is what is going to be the preferred file extension? .m4v, mp4, mpg, mpeg, m4a, h264 etc.? Within that group they each have the ability to be encoded with various codecs. I don't see how we are going to be any better off with the <video> tag than we were with flv. At least everyone supported Flash video.

Now each browser maker has a dog in the race again as far as video is concerned. That was the original problem that caused Flash to win out before.

What you say is true!

But the problem is that Flash changed every video flavor to vanilla-- a workable, but uninspiring video player... with a few good features and a lot of bad ones.

IMHO, users have seen the light and will not be bothered with a non-standard UI and be satisfied with: ""you can have any flavor you want-- as long as it's vanilla!"

The browser makers that understand this, and adapt will win the day!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #276 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


3) Here is what Handbrake, the "open-source, GPL-licensed, multiplatform, multithreaded video transcoder, available for MacOS X, Linux and Windows" has to say about dropping support for AVI and DivX.

Good info. Quick question: Do you know if Handbrake is licensed to export to h.264? Reason I ask is that they kind of have the reputation as a cracker type DVD ripper.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #277 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

What you say is true!

But the problem is that Flash changed every video flavor to vanilla-- a workable, but uninspiring video player... with a few good features and a lot of bad ones.

IMHO, users have seen the light and will not be bothered with a non-standard UI and be satisfied with: ""you can have any flavor you want-- as long as it's vanilla!"

The browser makers that understand this, and adapt will win the day!

.

Sorry Dick, this makes no sense to me. I can make any kind of video UI I want with Flash. I can even provide a button to make the video play backwards. With <video> you only get the default controller.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #278 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Good info. Quick question: Do you know if Handbrake is licensed to export to h.264? Reason I ask is that they kind of have the reputation as a cracker type DVD ripper.

They use x264 specifically because it's free to use. Whether that would be an issue outside of France, if they ever tried to sell the app, or even in the future as is remains to be seen, but so far it's all free.
x264
A large portion of these speed, size, and quality improvements come to us for free, from the x264 project.
http://handbrake.fr/

Note: From my previous post, Apple does use the QuickTime MOV container with the Tron video demo, which further shows this is about marketing Safari over other browsers, not marketing HTML5, CSS3 and JS over Flash. I tested it in Chrome v5 and the apge would load with a static image, but no video. You could option to DL the video, though.
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 #279 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

2) What is "quality" about the AVI container? I hope you aren't confusing the common video codec used with AVIs with the container.

I don't know that much about codecs. I just use the tools. FCP on Mac and Premiere on Windows. On Windows I always render the movie as AVI at the highest quality I think it says Video for Windows and it looks fantastic. At that point I use Flash to create flv.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #280 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sorry Dick, this makes no sense to me. I can make any kind of video UI I want with Flash. I can even provide a button to make the video play backwards. With <video> you only get the default controller.

Thats not true. With CSS3 and JS you can do anything you want with the embedded video. But none of that is the point of the inclusion of this brilliant tag. The point is to make it faster and smoother with less overhead. Regardless of what Adobe has told you playing video is considerably less resource intensive than playing it webcode. Plugins are the not the answer for this simple task, especially on mobiles.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple highlights interactive capabilities of HTML5