Open up a netbook, go to YouTube and play a video. Now change to HTML5 and play that same video. Game. Set. Match.
It really is not an issue when using Windows even on a netbook. As I pointed out earlier in this thread the requirements for Windows is very low for running Flash 10 compared to OSX.
Based on the resolution your going to be running on a netbook with most netbooks running Windows XP you are only going to need 126MB of ram and 64MB of VRAM. Most netbooks come with 1-2GB of RAM and at least 64MB of VRAM. Not an issue at all.
However you are correct running the same video in HTML5 will take up far less resources.
Flash is far more of an OSX then a Windows issue, in most cases its a non issue for Windows users.
It really is not an issue when using Windows even on a netbook. As I pointed out earlier in this thread the requirements for Windows is very low for running Flash 10 compared to OSX.
Based on the resolution your going to be running on a netbook with most netbooks running Windows XP you are only going to need 126MB of ram and 64MB of VRAM. Most netbooks come with 1-2GB of RAM and at least 64MB of VRAM. Not an issue at all.
However you are correct running the same video in HTML5 will take up far less resources.
Flash is far more of an OSX then a Windows issue, in most cases its a non issue for Windows users.
Except that Flash video taxes you CPU, which you oddly forgot to mention when listing the system requirements... For 852x480 (480p), 24 fps video you need an [BIntel ]Pentium 4 2.33GHz, AMD Athlon™ 64 2800+ processor (or equivalent)[/B].
I bet now you're going to convince us that the 412MHz ARM in the original iPhone is faster than 2.33GHz P4? Before you start FUDing again remember there are plenty of sites detailing how much CPU Flash taxes on YouTube, Hulu and other sites.
I suspect the iPad will be so locked down, you will loose freedom of choice in how you can use it.
So your point is that you're living in fantasy land and we're supposed to care about your delusions? There's no reason to think that the iPad will be any more locked down than the iPhone. It's the same OS, uses the same iTunes, and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee
Don't you think a vast majority have plans on dropping Flash simply due to the fact that a sizable user-base will be unable to view the ads they are paying sites to show?
How else is an AD Agency going to explain to its client that 100% of the iPhone users, 100% of the iPod Touch users, 100% of the iPad users and 50-80% or more of the rest of the smartphone users are not seeing the AD they paid for?
Any AD agency TODAY designing a new ad for a client would be nuts to use FLASH knowing for a fact that a measurable audience will not be able to see the AD.
Exactly. The number of smart phones (and iPads, soon) is growing far, far faster than the computer market and is already a substantial share of the total advertising market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
Consumer choice is a wonderful thing, and as Apple doesn't want to give it to us (quite the opposite in the walled garden that is the iPhone OS) we shall have to turn to the competition to fill the gap.
The Nexus One with Android 2.1 is already a better phone and OS than the iPhone offers, and from what I've seen and read of Windows Mobile 7, the next big leap in mobile operating systems will, surprisingly, come from Microsoft.
WIndows Moblie 7 looks reasonably competent, but no one in their right mind would claim that it's a big leap over anything. Oh, and btw, WIndows Mobile 7 won't support Flash, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Are you serious? You've been so against the HTML5 video tag and you've never once checked it out despite the many, many times the instructions were laid out before you? :sigh:
That's true of the overwhelming majority of Apple bashers. You've been here long enough to know that they're quite happy to go on and on about how much better Windows is and how the Mac won't do what they want it to - and then loudly brag that they've never used a Mac and wouldn't be caught dead using one.
Apparently, their egos are so fragile that they can't stand the thought of trying something that's outside of their own limited knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkrantz
In the REAL world of advertising. Where I labor in the trenches as a designer and developer everyday. Clients do actually want flash, and not just for animation, but also because it offers them multiple click tag requests.
Furthermore, creating flash adds does not in any way prohibit us from creating adds for mobile. In actuality we can simultaneously support the mobile space with static banners and its really nothing more than exporting a still image.
The idea that clients tell us not to use flash because it doesn't appear on their iPhone is completely false. They have no reason to make that choice because there is nothing standing in the way of supporting both. The reality is that in the clients perception they wish the mobile space did support flash and are often disappointed that their adds are less multimedia capable in the mobile arena.
Really? Then why did Yahoo introduce html 5? Hulu is doing the same. NYT is dropping Flash. If you're really in advertising, maybe you can explain why an advertiser would give up a large percentage of their market simply so they can stick with flash when html 5 coding is no more difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger
No flash support = No sale for me...... ( That seems fair )
Several smart phones have been showing flash 10.1 on their device. It works... The argument that it can't work on a mobile processor is now moot. It might drain the battery, but it is my choice to use it or not...
Maybe you should look at some of those sites showing Flash 10.1 running on Pre devices. Slow, choppy, and buggy. If that's good enough for you, go ahead and get a Pre. It's not good enough for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amdahl
Bottom Line:
If Flash is so bad, and HTML 5 is so good, then Apple needs to do nothing. 'It's no big deal. Just put Flash on the device.' Flash will wither and die anyway, and your customers will be happy along the way. HTML5 has Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, and all the other weblings hoo-rahing for it.
This is a ridiculous argument for two reasons.
First, customers would blame Apple when they got slow, choppy video and short battery life. Apple would get the blame for Flash's shortcomings.
Second, if Flash were available, the incentive for developers to code into html 5 would be near zero - no matter how much better it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
But here is the question that no one has really answered. Why does Flash have to die beyond the simplistic answer of it does not run well on a Mac?
That's one of the reasons. Another is that it doesn't run well on Windows, either. And it doesn't run acceptably on ANY mobile devices. Is that enough for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD
Sorry no need to. Mac OSX has a small share and Adobe has no need to change for it and that's NO lie!
OK. So why does it bother you so much that Apple won't have Flash on the iPad. You're obviously not going to get one and you don't think it will have any impact on Adobe, so why does it bother you so much that you post dozens of messages on the subject?
Jealousy is a terrible thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhap
I just can't understand why people want to kill Flash.
It's a great tool, and even if it does seem a bit expensive, at least it works.
For a sufficiently low definition of 'works', that might be true. Fortunately for its tens of millions of loyal customers, Apple isn't satisfied with 'it sort of limps along' and wants excellence. Flash is junk on every platform, but especially on Macs. But the average user sees their system slow to a crawl, fans rev up, and the computer gets hot enough to fry eggs and blames Apple. Apple simply said 'no thanks. We have no desire to have junk on our phones.'
Why won't Hulu let me have the "whole of the Internet"?
I don't reside in the US.
I want my "whole of Internet".
Why is Hulu stopping me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
While I appreciate what Apple is trying to do with Flash (not accept sub-par software), that does not necessarily mean they aren't robbing users of a full web experience on the iPad.
What's good for the iPhone is not necessarily going to be acceptable for the iPad. That's quite a leap in faith. Web usage on the iPad is going to be different from how iPhone users use the web. It'll be a lot closer to desktop web browsing patterns. And this is why users will expect and want Flash integration.
The average Apple fan may think Flash is junk and that it shouldn't be polluting his device. But the average user will want a $500 internet appliance to let him surf the whole internet. He could not care less for Apple's politics with Adobe. That won't stop them from buying an iPad or surfing the web on it. But they are going to look at it as a defect and an annoyance. No question about that. And I am wondering if they'll blame Apple for it.
Why won't Hulu let me have the "whole of the Internet"?
I don't reside in the US.
I know you're joking, but I thought I'd mention that the BBC's iPlayer and Hulu can be used outside their respective countries with a country specific VPN service.
I don't necessarily want flash, what I want is to not have a white square with a blue plug-in instead of the content I am looking for. As stated in the article there is no reason to support flash light, period. If a more reasonable version of flash for mobile comes out and we are not in html5 world apple should build flash right in. Not doing so would amount to using market monopoly to block a competing standard - exactly what Apple was so pissed about.
That's one of the reasons. Another is that it doesn't run well on Windows, either. And it doesn't run acceptably on ANY mobile devices. Is that enough for you?
YMMV, however, Flash runs acceptably on my MBP with Firefox in the sense that it does not crash. Flash crashes Safari on my MBP.
Flash runs fine on my wife's Dell XPS laptop - seemless video, no crashes, it does warm up a bit.
I installed the new beta flash player on my Dell Mini 9, and flash (Hulu) is now watchable. Fairly seemless video (which was not the case before), but the sucker does get hot.
I have an iPhone, and knew going in it did not support flash and never would. I bought the phone for lots of reasons, but flash was a non-issue.
Except that Flash video taxes you CPU, which you oddly forgot to mention when listing the system requirements... For 852x480 (480p), 24 fps video you need an [BIntel ]Pentium 4 2.33GHz, AMD Athlon? 64 2800+ processor (or equivalent)[/B].
I bet now you're going to convince us that the 412MHz ARM in the original iPhone is faster than 2.33GHz P4? Before you start FUDing again remember there are plenty of sites detailing how much CPU Flash taxes on YouTube, Hulu and other sites.
I didn't forget to mention it because the rating on the CPU is so old it isnt worth mentioning.
I believe the CPU rating for Windows is a Pentium 2 450mhz or an AMD 600mhz or faster. We all know your average netbook is two to three times faster then that.
Dude I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just stating the simple facts anyone can get off the Adobe site when it comes to system requirements.
The only one FUDing is you. Yet again you have issues reading. I posted earlier that Flash is not the best for mobile devices which in this case would include the iPad however there is ZERO reason why it shouldn't work perfectly on any Mac system using OSX. The fact that it is an issue only means it needs to be optimized better for OSX.
Or you can simply do what I do, make sure you buy a system that can handle anything and that way you won't have to spend all your time posting about this stupid issue. I could care less if my video running Flash, HTML5 or a mouse on a wheel. Anything I run simply works.
Why won't Hulu let me have the "whole of the Internet"?
I don't reside in the US.
I want my "whole of Internet".
Why is Hulu stopping me?
Because, you don't reside in the U.S.
Quote:
"Hulu is a U.S.-only service. Unfortunately, we don't have international streaming rights for our content at this time. Our intention is to make Hulu's growing content lineup available worldwide as quickly as possible. This requires working with the content owners to clear the rights for each show or film in each specific region. It's a long-term project. We don't have a definite timeline yet, but we'll continue to work to make it happen." http://www.hulu.com/support/geofilter
Except that Flash video taxes you CPU, which you oddly forgot to mention when listing the system requirements... For 852x480 (480p), 24 fps video you need an [BIntel ]Pentium 4 2.33GHz, AMD Athlon? 64 2800+ processor (or equivalent)[/B].
I bet now you're going to convince us that the 412MHz ARM in the original iPhone is faster than 2.33GHz P4? Before you start FUDing again remember there are plenty of sites detailing how much CPU Flash taxes on YouTube, Hulu and other sites.
Damn you are right Flash is just a killer on my system. I just watched the Tiger Woods apology in 1080p on my quad core q9550 and my cpu spiked to 3%. Damn I thought smoke was going to start coming out of my system. By the way one issue you fail to understand is in many cases with todays GPU's the GPU is powerful enough to take most of the load off the CPU. See this is what us geeks call truly innovative technology. But hey at least you will have a cool looking calendar thats pretty innovative.
See this is what happens when you aren't a control freak like SJ and you actually allow the OEM to handle the driver support. You get hardware and drivers that actually work correctly.
Damn you are right Flash is just a killer on my system. I just watched the Tiger Woods apology in 1080p on my quad core q9550 and my cpu spiked to 3%.
I've used enough machines to know you are lying about the CPU utilization but the part I find most humorous is you're rampant claims that it works so well on slow HW yet you use an Intel Core 2 Quad Yorkfield running at 2.83GHz with 12MB L2 to prove your point. Classic!
Quote:
See this is what happens when you aren't a control freak like SJ and you actually allow the OEM to handle the driver support. You get hardware and drivers that actually work correctly.
You still fail to realize that Apple is an OEM. As for driver support from OEMs they all have issues. Let's see if you can guess what machine is being talked about below...
And at last we arrive at the real bone to pick with this laptop: the horrible trackpad. At first blush it doesn't look too bad, since it's large, non-glossy and relatively unadorned. It's lacking buttons, like Apple's recent MacBooks, but that didn't end the world or anything, did it? Well, somebody botched this part bad. [They] apparently forgot that axing the buttons means making darn well sure the software is pitch-perfect. And it isn't. Whether Synaptics is to blame for its drivers or hardware, or [they are] for the configuration, at the end of the day [they are] the one that's selling this $1,700 laptop to people with a basically non-usable trackpad.
You just love to set me up to smack you down. Masochistic, much?
And after all the postings in this thread the other, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the only reason Mac users want Flash gone, is because the almighty Apple was ignored.
Really? Is that your honest assessment, or are you simply mischaracterizing out of frustration? I've been reading all the postings and observing a fair share of apparent nonsense and bias (heavily weighted towards one group of advocates, though advocating may be too generous a term). But, I've also read sound business and technical assertions (more from those taking a contrasting position). I assume both positions are primarily composed of "Mac users." However, to arrive at an "inescapable conclusion" that it's "only" due to Apple being "ignored" ... really? That's just a very different reality from my empirical review of the postings.
Why won't Hulu let me have the "whole of the Internet"?
I don't reside in the US.
I want my "whole of Internet".
Why is Hulu stopping me?
Abster mentioned one reason, I think another is that the ad network isn't there yet either. A lot of ads for US only products and services, as well as public service announcements would be lost on non-US users. They would also need to have an in-region office to handle ads, as well as nearby caching/content distribution network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
a standards board should rule that HTML 5 is the industry standard, essentially shutting Flash down by government fiat.
Do tell. What government would that be again? I think you have a bit of an exaggerated view of it. No standards body can eliminate external standards by fiat, at least nothing that I'm aware of these days, certainly not the W3C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
And after all the postings in this thread the other, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the only reason Mac users want Flash gone, is because the almighty Apple was ignored.
It might be the case for some people, but I think it's an unfair characterization. In my case, I was FlashBlocking years before I had a Mac. I was disliking Flash as far back as 1999, because it had a goofy, easily malfunctioning installer (it didn't like Windows NT) and it took too much CPU on a Windows machine. It might have been called something different back then, but Macromedia had a long series of clunky animation protocols that sometimes made state of the art machines seem a few years old.
Really? Is that your honest assessment, or are you simply mischaracterizing out of frustration? I've been reading all the postings and observing a fair share of apparent nonsense and bias (heavily weighted towards one group of advocates, though advocating may be too generous a term). But, I've also read sound business and technical assertions (more from those taking a contrasting position). I assume both positions are primarily composed of "Mac users." However, to arrive at an "inescapable conclusion" that it's "only" due to Apple being "ignored" ... really? That's just a very different reality from my empirical review of the postings.
some of it is frustration, some of it is the truth. I understand why SJ doesn't want Flash on his products. From Apple's point of view, it makes perfect sense, and at a certain level I agree with him.
OTOH, for most of the posters here, the issue is that Flash sucks of a Mac, and admittedly it is not great. I understand the frustration. I also understand the desire for something new. But I also think that if Flash ran as well under Mac as it does Windows, 99% of the people here would not have a complaint.
People have given a variety of reasons, but in the end, the overwhelming majority come back to the reason that Flash sucks on a Mac, even for people who give those other reasons.
However, I don't think that because it stinks on a Mac (and as I have said I own Macs, and an iPhone), that gives me the right to state that Flash should be eliminated from the web by some standards board, or that Adobe should simply give up Flash, as some have advocated. I do not think that my displeasure as a Mac user should force the vast majority of computer users (i.e., Windows) to give up their current experience on the web. I do not think that a company should be deprived of a revenue stream because I do not have an optimal experience. If Adobe does not want to spend the money and resources to optimize the code for a Mac, that is their decision and their right, just as it is Apple's right not to allow Flash on the iPhone, etc.
OTOH, If Flash really is that bad then someone will develop a better alternative, and that will supplant Flash.
it looks like Flash 10.1 for Mac OS X will be Cocoa (with Carbon fallback for non-Safari browsers) and will harness Core Animation.
...
Thanks for the informative link. It seems to address clearly a couple salient Flash/web/browser technical issues and one business issue ("a joint effort between Apple and Adobe engineers").
Abster mentioned one reason, I think another is that the ad network isn't there yet either. A lot of ads for US only products and services, as well as public service announcements would be lost on non-US users. They would also need to have an in-region office to handle ads, as well as nearby caching/content distribution network.
Am I completely misreading hill60's comment? I could swear he's just joking about not having Hulu means he isn't getting the "whole of the internet" which is said by those who want Flash on iDevices at any cost.
Do tell. What government would that be again? I think you have a bit of an exaggerated view of it. No standards body can eliminate external standards by fiat, at least nothing that I'm aware of these days, certainly not the W3C.
I meant government in the sense of a ruling body. It is a bit of an exaggeration, true, but if HTML 5 was ruled the industry standard, how many people would bother with supporting both HTML 5 and Adobe? Probably not many, and that would have the net effect of eventually killing off Flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It might be the case for some people, but I think it's an unfair characterization. In my case, I was FlashBlocking years before I had a Mac. I was disliking Flash as far back as 1999, because it had a goofy, easily malfunctioning installer (it didn't like Windows NT) and it took too much CPU on a Windows machine. It might have been called something different back then, but Macromedia had a long series of clunky animation protocols that sometimes made state of the art machines seem a few years old.
I should have said the "majority of Mac users" on this board. As I said, in the end, the majority of reasons for getting rid of Flash is because it stinks on a Mac. I agree. I also think that a replacement should be found. However, I think it should be done through the market.
Comments
they feel like it might be a decade before HTML 5 sees standardization...
A decade in "technology time" is more like 3-1/2 years real time.
Hey - You've got me mixed up with some sort of nutcase. I never said anything like that.
Sorry my bad it was iBill who said it
Open up a netbook, go to YouTube and play a video. Now change to HTML5 and play that same video. Game. Set. Match.
It really is not an issue when using Windows even on a netbook. As I pointed out earlier in this thread the requirements for Windows is very low for running Flash 10 compared to OSX.
Based on the resolution your going to be running on a netbook with most netbooks running Windows XP you are only going to need 126MB of ram and 64MB of VRAM. Most netbooks come with 1-2GB of RAM and at least 64MB of VRAM. Not an issue at all.
However you are correct running the same video in HTML5 will take up far less resources.
Flash is far more of an OSX then a Windows issue, in most cases its a non issue for Windows users.
It really is not an issue when using Windows even on a netbook. As I pointed out earlier in this thread the requirements for Windows is very low for running Flash 10 compared to OSX.
Based on the resolution your going to be running on a netbook with most netbooks running Windows XP you are only going to need 126MB of ram and 64MB of VRAM. Most netbooks come with 1-2GB of RAM and at least 64MB of VRAM. Not an issue at all.
However you are correct running the same video in HTML5 will take up far less resources.
Flash is far more of an OSX then a Windows issue, in most cases its a non issue for Windows users.
Except that Flash video taxes you CPU, which you oddly forgot to mention when listing the system requirements... For 852x480 (480p), 24 fps video you need an [BIntel ]Pentium 4 2.33GHz, AMD Athlon™ 64 2800+ processor (or equivalent)[/B].
I bet now you're going to convince us that the 412MHz ARM in the original iPhone is faster than 2.33GHz P4? Before you start FUDing again remember there are plenty of sites detailing how much CPU Flash taxes on YouTube, Hulu and other sites.
I suspect the iPad will be so locked down, you will loose freedom of choice in how you can use it.
So your point is that you're living in fantasy land and we're supposed to care about your delusions? There's no reason to think that the iPad will be any more locked down than the iPhone. It's the same OS, uses the same iTunes, and so on.
Don't you think a vast majority have plans on dropping Flash simply due to the fact that a sizable user-base will be unable to view the ads they are paying sites to show?
How else is an AD Agency going to explain to its client that 100% of the iPhone users, 100% of the iPod Touch users, 100% of the iPad users and 50-80% or more of the rest of the smartphone users are not seeing the AD they paid for?
Any AD agency TODAY designing a new ad for a client would be nuts to use FLASH knowing for a fact that a measurable audience will not be able to see the AD.
Exactly. The number of smart phones (and iPads, soon) is growing far, far faster than the computer market and is already a substantial share of the total advertising market.
Consumer choice is a wonderful thing, and as Apple doesn't want to give it to us (quite the opposite in the walled garden that is the iPhone OS) we shall have to turn to the competition to fill the gap.
The Nexus One with Android 2.1 is already a better phone and OS than the iPhone offers, and from what I've seen and read of Windows Mobile 7, the next big leap in mobile operating systems will, surprisingly, come from Microsoft.
WIndows Moblie 7 looks reasonably competent, but no one in their right mind would claim that it's a big leap over anything. Oh, and btw, WIndows Mobile 7 won't support Flash, either.
Are you serious? You've been so against the HTML5 video tag and you've never once checked it out despite the many, many times the instructions were laid out before you? :sigh:
That's true of the overwhelming majority of Apple bashers. You've been here long enough to know that they're quite happy to go on and on about how much better Windows is and how the Mac won't do what they want it to - and then loudly brag that they've never used a Mac and wouldn't be caught dead using one.
Apparently, their egos are so fragile that they can't stand the thought of trying something that's outside of their own limited knowledge.
In the REAL world of advertising. Where I labor in the trenches as a designer and developer everyday. Clients do actually want flash, and not just for animation, but also because it offers them multiple click tag requests.
Furthermore, creating flash adds does not in any way prohibit us from creating adds for mobile. In actuality we can simultaneously support the mobile space with static banners and its really nothing more than exporting a still image.
The idea that clients tell us not to use flash because it doesn't appear on their iPhone is completely false. They have no reason to make that choice because there is nothing standing in the way of supporting both. The reality is that in the clients perception they wish the mobile space did support flash and are often disappointed that their adds are less multimedia capable in the mobile arena.
Really? Then why did Yahoo introduce html 5? Hulu is doing the same. NYT is dropping Flash. If you're really in advertising, maybe you can explain why an advertiser would give up a large percentage of their market simply so they can stick with flash when html 5 coding is no more difficult.
No flash support = No sale for me...... ( That seems fair )
Several smart phones have been showing flash 10.1 on their device. It works... The argument that it can't work on a mobile processor is now moot. It might drain the battery, but it is my choice to use it or not...
Maybe you should look at some of those sites showing Flash 10.1 running on Pre devices. Slow, choppy, and buggy. If that's good enough for you, go ahead and get a Pre. It's not good enough for Apple.
Bottom Line:
If Flash is so bad, and HTML 5 is so good, then Apple needs to do nothing. 'It's no big deal. Just put Flash on the device.' Flash will wither and die anyway, and your customers will be happy along the way. HTML5 has Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, and all the other weblings hoo-rahing for it.
This is a ridiculous argument for two reasons.
First, customers would blame Apple when they got slow, choppy video and short battery life. Apple would get the blame for Flash's shortcomings.
Second, if Flash were available, the incentive for developers to code into html 5 would be near zero - no matter how much better it is.
But here is the question that no one has really answered. Why does Flash have to die beyond the simplistic answer of it does not run well on a Mac?
That's one of the reasons. Another is that it doesn't run well on Windows, either. And it doesn't run acceptably on ANY mobile devices. Is that enough for you?
Sorry no need to. Mac OSX has a small share and Adobe has no need to change for it and that's NO lie!
OK. So why does it bother you so much that Apple won't have Flash on the iPad. You're obviously not going to get one and you don't think it will have any impact on Adobe, so why does it bother you so much that you post dozens of messages on the subject?
Jealousy is a terrible thing.
I just can't understand why people want to kill Flash.
It's a great tool, and even if it does seem a bit expensive, at least it works.
For a sufficiently low definition of 'works', that might be true. Fortunately for its tens of millions of loyal customers, Apple isn't satisfied with 'it sort of limps along' and wants excellence. Flash is junk on every platform, but especially on Macs. But the average user sees their system slow to a crawl, fans rev up, and the computer gets hot enough to fry eggs and blames Apple. Apple simply said 'no thanks. We have no desire to have junk on our phones.'
I don't reside in the US.
I want my "whole of Internet".
Why is Hulu stopping me?
While I appreciate what Apple is trying to do with Flash (not accept sub-par software), that does not necessarily mean they aren't robbing users of a full web experience on the iPad.
What's good for the iPhone is not necessarily going to be acceptable for the iPad. That's quite a leap in faith. Web usage on the iPad is going to be different from how iPhone users use the web. It'll be a lot closer to desktop web browsing patterns. And this is why users will expect and want Flash integration.
The average Apple fan may think Flash is junk and that it shouldn't be polluting his device. But the average user will want a $500 internet appliance to let him surf the whole internet. He could not care less for Apple's politics with Adobe. That won't stop them from buying an iPad or surfing the web on it. But they are going to look at it as a defect and an annoyance. No question about that. And I am wondering if they'll blame Apple for it.
it looks like Flash 10.1 for Mac OS X will be Cocoa (with Carbon fallback for non-Safari browsers) and will harness Core Animation.
Why won't Hulu let me have the "whole of the Internet"?
I don't reside in the US.
I know you're joking, but I thought I'd mention that the BBC's iPlayer and Hulu can be used outside their respective countries with a country specific VPN service.
That's one of the reasons. Another is that it doesn't run well on Windows, either. And it doesn't run acceptably on ANY mobile devices. Is that enough for you?
YMMV, however, Flash runs acceptably on my MBP with Firefox in the sense that it does not crash. Flash crashes Safari on my MBP.
Flash runs fine on my wife's Dell XPS laptop - seemless video, no crashes, it does warm up a bit.
I installed the new beta flash player on my Dell Mini 9, and flash (Hulu) is now watchable. Fairly seemless video (which was not the case before), but the sucker does get hot.
I have an iPhone, and knew going in it did not support flash and never would. I bought the phone for lots of reasons, but flash was a non-issue.
Except that Flash video taxes you CPU, which you oddly forgot to mention when listing the system requirements... For 852x480 (480p), 24 fps video you need an [BIntel ]Pentium 4 2.33GHz, AMD Athlon? 64 2800+ processor (or equivalent)[/B].
I bet now you're going to convince us that the 412MHz ARM in the original iPhone is faster than 2.33GHz P4? Before you start FUDing again remember there are plenty of sites detailing how much CPU Flash taxes on YouTube, Hulu and other sites.
I didn't forget to mention it because the rating on the CPU is so old it isnt worth mentioning.
I believe the CPU rating for Windows is a Pentium 2 450mhz or an AMD 600mhz or faster. We all know your average netbook is two to three times faster then that.
Dude I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just stating the simple facts anyone can get off the Adobe site when it comes to system requirements.
The only one FUDing is you. Yet again you have issues reading. I posted earlier that Flash is not the best for mobile devices which in this case would include the iPad however there is ZERO reason why it shouldn't work perfectly on any Mac system using OSX. The fact that it is an issue only means it needs to be optimized better for OSX.
Or you can simply do what I do, make sure you buy a system that can handle anything and that way you won't have to spend all your time posting about this stupid issue. I could care less if my video running Flash, HTML5 or a mouse on a wheel. Anything I run simply works.
Why won't Hulu let me have the "whole of the Internet"?
I don't reside in the US.
I want my "whole of Internet".
Why is Hulu stopping me?
Because, you don't reside in the U.S.
"Hulu is a U.S.-only service. Unfortunately, we don't have international streaming rights for our content at this time. Our intention is to make Hulu's growing content lineup available worldwide as quickly as possible. This requires working with the content owners to clear the rights for each show or film in each specific region. It's a long-term project. We don't have a definite timeline yet, but we'll continue to work to make it happen." http://www.hulu.com/support/geofilter
Except that Flash video taxes you CPU, which you oddly forgot to mention when listing the system requirements... For 852x480 (480p), 24 fps video you need an [BIntel ]Pentium 4 2.33GHz, AMD Athlon? 64 2800+ processor (or equivalent)[/B].
I bet now you're going to convince us that the 412MHz ARM in the original iPhone is faster than 2.33GHz P4? Before you start FUDing again remember there are plenty of sites detailing how much CPU Flash taxes on YouTube, Hulu and other sites.
Damn you are right Flash is just a killer on my system. I just watched the Tiger Woods apology in 1080p on my quad core q9550 and my cpu spiked to 3%. Damn I thought smoke was going to start coming out of my system. By the way one issue you fail to understand is in many cases with todays GPU's the GPU is powerful enough to take most of the load off the CPU. See this is what us geeks call truly innovative technology. But hey at least you will have a cool looking calendar thats pretty innovative.
See this is what happens when you aren't a control freak like SJ and you actually allow the OEM to handle the driver support. You get hardware and drivers that actually work correctly.
Damn you are right Flash is just a killer on my system. I just watched the Tiger Woods apology in 1080p on my quad core q9550 and my cpu spiked to 3%.
I've used enough machines to know you are lying about the CPU utilization but the part I find most humorous is you're rampant claims that it works so well on slow HW yet you use an Intel Core 2 Quad Yorkfield running at 2.83GHz with 12MB L2 to prove your point. Classic!
See this is what happens when you aren't a control freak like SJ and you actually allow the OEM to handle the driver support. You get hardware and drivers that actually work correctly.
You still fail to realize that Apple is an OEM. As for driver support from OEMs they all have issues. Let's see if you can guess what machine is being talked about below...You just love to set me up to smack you down. Masochistic, much?
And after all the postings in this thread the other, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the only reason Mac users want Flash gone, is because the almighty Apple was ignored.
Really? Is that your honest assessment, or are you simply mischaracterizing out of frustration? I've been reading all the postings and observing a fair share of apparent nonsense and bias (heavily weighted towards one group of advocates, though advocating may be too generous a term). But, I've also read sound business and technical assertions (more from those taking a contrasting position). I assume both positions are primarily composed of "Mac users." However, to arrive at an "inescapable conclusion" that it's "only" due to Apple being "ignored" ... really? That's just a very different reality from my empirical review of the postings.
Why won't Hulu let me have the "whole of the Internet"?
I don't reside in the US.
I want my "whole of Internet".
Why is Hulu stopping me?
Abster mentioned one reason, I think another is that the ad network isn't there yet either. A lot of ads for US only products and services, as well as public service announcements would be lost on non-US users. They would also need to have an in-region office to handle ads, as well as nearby caching/content distribution network.
a standards board should rule that HTML 5 is the industry standard, essentially shutting Flash down by government fiat.
Do tell. What government would that be again? I think you have a bit of an exaggerated view of it. No standards body can eliminate external standards by fiat, at least nothing that I'm aware of these days, certainly not the W3C.
And after all the postings in this thread the other, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the only reason Mac users want Flash gone, is because the almighty Apple was ignored.
It might be the case for some people, but I think it's an unfair characterization. In my case, I was FlashBlocking years before I had a Mac. I was disliking Flash as far back as 1999, because it had a goofy, easily malfunctioning installer (it didn't like Windows NT) and it took too much CPU on a Windows machine. It might have been called something different back then, but Macromedia had a long series of clunky animation protocols that sometimes made state of the art machines seem a few years old.
Really? Is that your honest assessment, or are you simply mischaracterizing out of frustration? I've been reading all the postings and observing a fair share of apparent nonsense and bias (heavily weighted towards one group of advocates, though advocating may be too generous a term). But, I've also read sound business and technical assertions (more from those taking a contrasting position). I assume both positions are primarily composed of "Mac users." However, to arrive at an "inescapable conclusion" that it's "only" due to Apple being "ignored" ... really? That's just a very different reality from my empirical review of the postings.
some of it is frustration, some of it is the truth. I understand why SJ doesn't want Flash on his products. From Apple's point of view, it makes perfect sense, and at a certain level I agree with him.
OTOH, for most of the posters here, the issue is that Flash sucks of a Mac, and admittedly it is not great. I understand the frustration. I also understand the desire for something new. But I also think that if Flash ran as well under Mac as it does Windows, 99% of the people here would not have a complaint.
People have given a variety of reasons, but in the end, the overwhelming majority come back to the reason that Flash sucks on a Mac, even for people who give those other reasons.
However, I don't think that because it stinks on a Mac (and as I have said I own Macs, and an iPhone), that gives me the right to state that Flash should be eliminated from the web by some standards board, or that Adobe should simply give up Flash, as some have advocated. I do not think that my displeasure as a Mac user should force the vast majority of computer users (i.e., Windows) to give up their current experience on the web. I do not think that a company should be deprived of a revenue stream because I do not have an optimal experience. If Adobe does not want to spend the money and resources to optimize the code for a Mac, that is their decision and their right, just as it is Apple's right not to allow Flash on the iPhone, etc.
OTOH, If Flash really is that bad then someone will develop a better alternative, and that will supplant Flash.
Good news from Adobe!
it looks like Flash 10.1 for Mac OS X will be Cocoa (with Carbon fallback for non-Safari browsers) and will harness Core Animation.
...
Thanks for the informative link. It seems to address clearly a couple salient Flash/web/browser technical issues and one business issue ("a joint effort between Apple and Adobe engineers").
Because, you don't reside in the U.S.
Abster mentioned one reason, I think another is that the ad network isn't there yet either. A lot of ads for US only products and services, as well as public service announcements would be lost on non-US users. They would also need to have an in-region office to handle ads, as well as nearby caching/content distribution network.
Am I completely misreading hill60's comment? I could swear he's just joking about not having Hulu means he isn't getting the "whole of the internet" which is said by those who want Flash on iDevices at any cost.
Do tell. What government would that be again? I think you have a bit of an exaggerated view of it. No standards body can eliminate external standards by fiat, at least nothing that I'm aware of these days, certainly not the W3C.
I meant government in the sense of a ruling body. It is a bit of an exaggeration, true, but if HTML 5 was ruled the industry standard, how many people would bother with supporting both HTML 5 and Adobe? Probably not many, and that would have the net effect of eventually killing off Flash.
It might be the case for some people, but I think it's an unfair characterization. In my case, I was FlashBlocking years before I had a Mac. I was disliking Flash as far back as 1999, because it had a goofy, easily malfunctioning installer (it didn't like Windows NT) and it took too much CPU on a Windows machine. It might have been called something different back then, but Macromedia had a long series of clunky animation protocols that sometimes made state of the art machines seem a few years old.
I should have said the "majority of Mac users" on this board. As I said, in the end, the majority of reasons for getting rid of Flash is because it stinks on a Mac. I agree. I also think that a replacement should be found. However, I think it should be done through the market.