If Greenpeace were a legitimate environmental watchdog, it would target Flash as a bigger threat than PVC and BFRs combined, just by the composite amount of energy it consumes to do absolutely nothing of value.
How do you determine whether the video is Flash or HTML? I'd like to try your test.
Can you give specific URLs? Or another way to find equivalent Flash/Nonflash videos?
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:
Go to YouTube and play a video. If you right click it and it says Flash then it's Flash. You can see the resource usage in Activity Monitor on a Mac or in Task Manager on Windows.
After you get those stats go to: http://www.youtube.com/html5 You'll see an option to test out the HTML5 option. Choose it and then reload the video you just played and watch the stats.
Note: Close out everything else first so you can make the test as pristine as possible. Also, if you are using a Mac installing iStat Menus allows you to see the CPU utilization from the Menu Bar without opening up Activity Monitor.
I other words, no need for Flash in my daily life.
I read a lot of news on my iPhone. It sucks that the video clips don't work.
I don't need video news, but then again, I don't need much besides food, clothing and shelter.
But it sure would be great to have the ability to access the videos when I want to. Its one thing to read about a huge mudslide, for example, and quite another to watch entire houses sliding down a mountainside.
My guess is that the typical shmoe who is the target market for the iPad will be disappointed that their shiny new device renders error messages instead of videos. The answer that Adobe is lazy will be unlikely to satisfy them. The answer that they are better off without the video will likey piss them off.
What I also dislike of the copy and paste is when you are reading and you go to scroll down and it highlights a word thinking you want to copy. Maybe that what Jobs hated but finally gave in. I know a lot of peeps complain about this.
U
I agree that Apple's implementation of cut/paste is annoyingly bad.
I read a lot of news on my iPhone. It sucks that the video clips don't work.
Really? I read a lot of news on my iPhone too. Much of it on the CNN app. I see video clips just fine there.
Instead of bitching about Apple, I think we should just wait and see how content developers react to this. Are they more interested in siding with Adobe, or in getting their content out to the millions upon millions of owners of iPhones, Touches, and iPads? I'm betting on the latter.
Okay.... now I see most of your points, tho I'm leaning more against Flash on principal... Here's the kicker...
The Advertisers:
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.
Make no mistakes... The people PAYING for the ADs to be seen don't give a RATS ASS about the details... If the CEO using his iPhone or iPad gets a big blank box instead of the spiffy new banner AD he will be less than happy.
Like many posts in these forums most of what you are saying just simply isn't true.
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.
Eventually, when the <canvas> tag is supported ubiquitously, we will likely be able to iFrame and html banner that uses JS to accomplish much of what we do in Flash. Both in the mobile world and the desktop world. *** EDIT: There is nothing to suggest that this method will be less intrusive or less processor intensive ***
Currently webkit mobile browsers do support the <canvas> tag and there are some respectable JS mobile engines like JQuery. The real barrier there is workflow for designers. The cost for production relative to what clients actually want to pay just doesn't make it worth doing. In that regard I think there is a huge opening for a designer friendly JS IDE similar to what Flash or Dreamweaver do now.
I'm no fan of Flash and will rejoice when it is replaced by something more efficient but until a viable option comes along the ability to use it when needed would be nice.
There's going to be lots of cool tablet computers that support Flash. Someday Apple products might be suitable for you, but in the meantime, there will be many interesting choices.
7. Microsoft bought the Mac based Movie editor, Avid, and forced audio giant ProTools onto PCs too.
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. I checked and according to RD, MS bought at 10% share in Avid and forged significant partnerships. I always wondered why Pro Tools was ported to the PC. While the LE version makes sense (even if it doesn't work well on many PCs), who would use PT HD on a PC?
Support for HTML5 support and IE support are not mutually exclusive. The HTML5 video tag is a foregone conclusion for the future or video delivery on the web but that does not mean Flash for video streaming is going to pop out of existence. Sites are easily written to check the browser type for HTML5 video tag support or a fallback to Flash if needed.
Here is a site that explains it and offers the simple code to web devs: http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody The only drawback is that JS is needed for the proper controls which is the only thing holding it back from YouTube, Vimeo and Hulu from going live on compatible browsers.
The only reason they would do this is if there was a large enough share of website customers that didn't have Flash installed. That will only happen if the iPad really takes off. Otherwise, why bother with the HTML 5 video functionality as well as Flash?
The only reason they would do this is if there was a large enough share of website customers that didn't have Flash installed. That will only happen if the iPad really takes off. Otherwise, why bother with the HTML 5 video functionality as well as Flash?
Having Flash on a ARM device doesn't mean that you can streaming video to the Flash plug-in.
Have you not seen the reviews of Flash running on an Atom processor, which is considerably more powerful than ARM?
Have you not read that Mozilla has disabled Flash n Firefox Mobile for Maemo because the perfomance?to use the technical term?sucked monkey balls?
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:
I've never expressed any antagonism for the HTML5 Video tag. Do you have me mixed up with some sort of cartoon character in your head?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Go to YouTube and play a video. If you right click it and it says Flash then it's Flash. You can see the resource usage in Activity Monitor on a Mac or in Task Manager on Windows.
After you get those stats go to: http://www.youtube.com/html5 You'll see an option to test out the HTML5 option. Choose it and then reload the video you just played and watch the stats.
Note: Close out everything else first so you can make the test as pristine as possible. Also, if you are using a Mac installing iStat Menus allows you to see the CPU utilization from the Menu Bar without opening up Activity Monitor.
Comments
If Greenpeace were a legitimate environmental watchdog, it would target Flash as a bigger threat than PVC and BFRs combined, just by the composite amount of energy it consumes to do absolutely nothing of value.
Haha excellent.
Apple: buy Adobe, recycle any useful parts, then kill it.
Oh I so wish this would happen. I hate Adobe with a passion.
Watch "Activity Monitor" with YouTube.
2.8 GHz C2D MBP hits 50% with Flash video.
With the same video it hits less 15% with HTML5.
What does that say about Flahs?
How do you determine whether the video is Flash or HTML? I'd like to try your test.
Can you give specific URLs? Or another way to find equivalent Flash/Nonflash videos?
Haha excellent.
HAHA That is pretty funny. DED definitely has a way with words.
How do you determine whether the video is Flash or HTML? I'd like to try your test.
Can you give specific URLs? Or another way to find equivalent Flash/Nonflash videos?
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:
Go to YouTube and play a video. If you right click it and it says Flash then it's Flash. You can see the resource usage in Activity Monitor on a Mac or in Task Manager on Windows.
After you get those stats go to: http://www.youtube.com/html5 You'll see an option to test out the HTML5 option. Choose it and then reload the video you just played and watch the stats.
Note: Close out everything else first so you can make the test as pristine as possible. Also, if you are using a Mac installing iStat Menus allows you to see the CPU utilization from the Menu Bar without opening up Activity Monitor.
I other words, no need for Flash in my daily life.
I read a lot of news on my iPhone. It sucks that the video clips don't work.
I don't need video news, but then again, I don't need much besides food, clothing and shelter.
But it sure would be great to have the ability to access the videos when I want to. Its one thing to read about a huge mudslide, for example, and quite another to watch entire houses sliding down a mountainside.
My guess is that the typical shmoe who is the target market for the iPad will be disappointed that their shiny new device renders error messages instead of videos. The answer that Adobe is lazy will be unlikely to satisfy them. The answer that they are better off without the video will likey piss them off.
What I also dislike of the copy and paste is when you are reading and you go to scroll down and it highlights a word thinking you want to copy. Maybe that what Jobs hated but finally gave in. I know a lot of peeps complain about this.
U
I agree that Apple's implementation of cut/paste is annoyingly bad.
I read a lot of news on my iPhone. It sucks that the video clips don't work.
Really? I read a lot of news on my iPhone too. Much of it on the CNN app. I see video clips just fine there.
Instead of bitching about Apple, I think we should just wait and see how content developers react to this. Are they more interested in siding with Adobe, or in getting their content out to the millions upon millions of owners of iPhones, Touches, and iPads? I'm betting on the latter.
Okay.... now I see most of your points, tho I'm leaning more against Flash on principal... Here's the kicker...
The Advertisers:
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.
Make no mistakes... The people PAYING for the ADs to be seen don't give a RATS ASS about the details... If the CEO using his iPhone or iPad gets a big blank box instead of the spiffy new banner AD he will be less than happy.
Like many posts in these forums most of what you are saying just simply isn't true.
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.
Eventually, when the <canvas> tag is supported ubiquitously, we will likely be able to iFrame and html banner that uses JS to accomplish much of what we do in Flash. Both in the mobile world and the desktop world. *** EDIT: There is nothing to suggest that this method will be less intrusive or less processor intensive ***
Currently webkit mobile browsers do support the <canvas> tag and there are some respectable JS mobile engines like JQuery. The real barrier there is workflow for designers. The cost for production relative to what clients actually want to pay just doesn't make it worth doing. In that regard I think there is a huge opening for a designer friendly JS IDE similar to what Flash or Dreamweaver do now.
According to the trolls, like iGenius, TEKSTUD, and the rest, Apple is doomed to eventual oblivion because of (insert favorite troll here).
I've never said anything remotely like that.
I agree that Apple's implementation of cut/paste is annoyingly bad.
Oy vey!
2) In what world does open mean prohibiting select vendors from running their software on your platform?
The Apple is rotten.
As is the author.
I'm no fan of Flash and will rejoice when it is replaced by something more efficient but until a viable option comes along the ability to use it when needed would be nice.
There's going to be lots of cool tablet computers that support Flash. Someday Apple products might be suitable for you, but in the meantime, there will be many interesting choices.
7. Microsoft bought the Mac based Movie editor, Avid, and forced audio giant ProTools onto PCs too.
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. I checked and according to RD, MS bought at 10% share in Avid and forged significant partnerships. I always wondered why Pro Tools was ported to the PC. While the LE version makes sense (even if it doesn't work well on many PCs), who would use PT HD on a PC?
I have absolutely no idea what your point is.
Support for HTML5 support and IE support are not mutually exclusive. The HTML5 video tag is a foregone conclusion for the future or video delivery on the web but that does not mean Flash for video streaming is going to pop out of existence. Sites are easily written to check the browser type for HTML5 video tag support or a fallback to Flash if needed.
Here is a site that explains it and offers the simple code to web devs: http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody The only drawback is that JS is needed for the proper controls which is the only thing holding it back from YouTube, Vimeo and Hulu from going live on compatible browsers.
The only reason they would do this is if there was a large enough share of website customers that didn't have Flash installed. That will only happen if the iPad really takes off. Otherwise, why bother with the HTML 5 video functionality as well as Flash?
So again.. what am I being forced to buy?
Certainly not an iPad...
The only reason they would do this is if there was a large enough share of website customers that didn't have Flash installed. That will only happen if the iPad really takes off. Otherwise, why bother with the HTML 5 video functionality as well as Flash?
Having Flash on a ARM device doesn't mean that you can streaming video to the Flash plug-in.
Have you not seen the reviews of Flash running on an Atom processor, which is considerably more powerful than ARM?
Have you not read that Mozilla has disabled Flash n Firefox Mobile for Maemo because the perfomance?to use the technical term?sucked monkey balls?
Why does Flash have to be such a resource hog?
It works fine on other brands of computers. Adobe has not put sufficient resources into the OSX version, presumably due to its low market share.
Oh I so wish this would happen. I hate Adobe with a passion.
Not for nothin', but I never hear of folks hating companies anywhere except on Apple fora.
I don't understand it. Is this the same as "hating" sports teams?
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:
I've never expressed any antagonism for the HTML5 Video tag. Do you have me mixed up with some sort of cartoon character in your head?
Go to YouTube and play a video. If you right click it and it says Flash then it's Flash. You can see the resource usage in Activity Monitor on a Mac or in Task Manager on Windows.
After you get those stats go to: http://www.youtube.com/html5 You'll see an option to test out the HTML5 option. Choose it and then reload the video you just played and watch the stats.
Note: Close out everything else first so you can make the test as pristine as possible. Also, if you are using a Mac installing iStat Menus allows you to see the CPU utilization from the Menu Bar without opening up Activity Monitor.
Thanks.