"it's up to Apple to expose the appropriate hooks to allow Adobe to (eventually) enable that functionality."
They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The main stink is Flash on mobile devices. Flash on desktops is bad enough. I find it a bit odd as to why the discussion is flash on the desktop. Efficient or not, full PC's can handle Flash.
Exactly! That is one of two main issues with Flash on the iPhone. The other is navigation on a Flash site with your fingers.
If you look at Jan Ozer's background, he makes his living doing seminars on Flash and other Adobe products. He is not impartial, and I would view the study in that light. For more light on the subject, check out the comment feed (not the article, as it is quite biased) at http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives..._new_tests.php
It looks like Safari has a better implementation of HTML 5 video then the other browser. Safari HTML5 video completely blows all the other combinations away.
That is only one aspect to the Flash problem though. HTML5 only uses CPU overhead when playing a video. Flash uses CPU overhead when it is just sitting there in a background advertisement (burning that iPad battery away if ran on it).
1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better
Actually it doesn't perform better. That is an important point. The fact that they have gone to GPU acceleration is a real issue, demonstrating that Flash really doesn't perform that well.
Quote:
2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?
Yes and much of that Flash content is virus infused or malware. A good portion of Flash on the internet is there to compromise your system. Of course there are good sites that put Flash to an advantage, but they now have options that should be better long term.
As to battery life that is a very real question. That is why I'd prefer that the user had control of Flash on his portable devices. Click To Flash works really well on my Mac so why not something similar for portable hardware? Well given that the hardware is powerful enough, I simply wouldn't want Flash on my iPhone 3G.
You see there is more to it than just the battery life. My generation iPhone anyways doesn't have the HP to run Flash. It is an issue of both RAM and CPU performance. I haven't looked at a 3GS so I can't comment on that platform.
Quote:
The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...
-Clive
Yeah the war is going to be more of a problem as portable hardware gets more powerful. The iPad is an example of a platform that is likely to be able to benefit from Flash. I say likely because we still know very little about A4 and the amount of system RAM on the device.
The thing is after a couple of years working with my 3G I'm convinced Apple did the right thing keeping Flash off it. The platform is slow and laggy enough right now, running another interpreter would not be a smart thing at all. The coming next gen iPhone of he iPad are likely to be different stories. The smart thing here is to let the consumer decide when the pay off to enabling Flash is worth the risk. Because there is risk every time you startup Flash.
Seems to me it's not really about performance. Its about transparency, openness and security. I'll take native rather than Flash playback for my videos, thanks.
BTW Streaming Learning Center? Do they have an agenda? Seems like it from the way they structured their "study."
The ?less content? argument is stupid and false. There?s no lack of content on the iDevices. I can find all the web apps, h.264 videos, and App Store apps I could ever want.
Yeah! Why should we accept what the word "less" means? It can mean anything we say it means!
"It seems reasonable to assume that if the Flash Player could access GPU-based hardware acceleration on the Mac (or iPod/iPhone/iPad), the difference between the CPU required for HTML5 playback and Flash playback would be very much narrowed, if not eliminated."
I think that is Job's (alleged) point. It seems reasonable, but it isn't being done. Xcode is free to download and available for adobe to use. All the objective C frameworks are in place to access the hardware.
The big question is why doesn't Adobe stop being lazy and start being progressive like they used to in the past. I yawned when I saw the CS3 to CS4 feature changes. Same story on flash. No improvements and only overload added.
The one flash game I played, briefly, recently was Portal, and would not have translated at all to the iPad due to lack of a mouse and keyboard.
Everything else I see beneath my Click2Flash cloak of awesome is either an advert or an embedded Video. Now as the adverts outnumber embedded videos I actually want to watch (that I can't watch in HTML5) by a factor of at least 100-1 I think I'm happy without Flash.
Imagine a worst situation. Flash on the iPad without the ability to turn it off... *shudder*
As a web developer by trade I've learned to harbour a deep and seething hatred for Flash. I've seen some excellent things done with it, but they've invariably been either useless eye-candy curiosities, Flow or 2d Portal.
They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.
Exactly! That is one of two main issues with Flash on the iPhone. The other is navigation on a Flash site with your fingers.
There wouldn't be a one-to-one relationship between flash and core animation. They do expose OpenGL (that Core Animation is based on) though. Apple of course supports CSS3 Animation as an alternative to Flash which was designed to be very similar to the basic features of Core Animation. CSS Animation can be used with the Canvas tag that was designed to be a simplified version of Quartz. Basically, Safari and Firefox have Core Animation light built right in to the HTML standard.
1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better
2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?
The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...
-Clive
Uh no the 90% figure is a dream figure as Windows is heavily entrenched in the server room were Flash would be used at a front end at best if at all.
It's not abouit picking bettery battery life versus content. Flash is simply a container for multimedia content. There are other options in many cases which is why Apple is chosing a different path.
"Full Internet" LOL. Stop reading tripe from marketers. Flash doesn't signal full or half internet. In fact if we look at the origin of the internet technolog like Flash (proprietary) is an anathema to what guys like Tim Berners-Lee designed.
Apple is in fact looking at my best interest because they are working to keep the Internet free from proprietary HTML tags, proprietary encoding methods (Silverlight, Flash etc). HTML5 doesn't cost you $$$ to utilize and consumers always love a good price.
I've said this on another thread here, but I'll repeat myself: Adobe doesn't get to unilaterally declare that Flash is "part of the Internet." To the extent that the word "Internet" has any useful meaning at all, it refers to a set of standardized protocols that anybody can implement and use. Flash doesn't meet that definition.
Flash is not part of "the whole Internet." Flash is merely Internet-adjacent.
I am SOOOOOO glad we're past that stage in the Internet when everyone had to write non-compliant code so that their site would work on Internet Explorer 6 perfectly but in another browser would likely crap out.
This stinks of the same reasoning. C'mon, if Microsoft can adjust to web standards, why the hell can't Adobe? Web Standards. Non-proprierity. Not locked in.
I've said this on another thread here, but I'll repeat myself: Adobe doesn't get to unilaterally declare that Flash is "part of the Internet." To the extent that the word "Internet" has any useful meaning at all, it refers to a set of standardized protocols that anybody can implement and use. Flash doesn't meet that definition.
Flash is not part of "the whole Internet." Flash is merely Internet-adjacent.
Yes. When Joe Shmoe goes to a flash internet site, and it will not work, he realizes right away that Flash is not part of the whole internet. And as we all know, only geeks care about watching video adjacent to the internet.
Comments
"it's up to Apple to expose the appropriate hooks to allow Adobe to (eventually) enable that functionality."
They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.
The main stink is Flash on mobile devices. Flash on desktops is bad enough. I find it a bit odd as to why the discussion is flash on the desktop. Efficient or not, full PC's can handle Flash.
Exactly! That is one of two main issues with Flash on the iPhone. The other is navigation on a Flash site with your fingers.
They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.
Demo in 2006 release in October 2007
That is only one aspect to the Flash problem though. HTML5 only uses CPU overhead when playing a video. Flash uses CPU overhead when it is just sitting there in a background advertisement (burning that iPad battery away if ran on it).
HTML5 shows significantly better performance, over Flash, on a Mac.
So why would anyone want Flash over HTML5?
Flash shows significantly better performance, over a Mac, on a PC.
So why would anyone want a Mac over a PC?
Perhaps because
1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better
Actually it doesn't perform better. That is an important point. The fact that they have gone to GPU acceleration is a real issue, demonstrating that Flash really doesn't perform that well.
2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?
Yes and much of that Flash content is virus infused or malware. A good portion of Flash on the internet is there to compromise your system. Of course there are good sites that put Flash to an advantage, but they now have options that should be better long term.
As to battery life that is a very real question. That is why I'd prefer that the user had control of Flash on his portable devices. Click To Flash works really well on my Mac so why not something similar for portable hardware? Well given that the hardware is powerful enough, I simply wouldn't want Flash on my iPhone 3G.
You see there is more to it than just the battery life. My generation iPhone anyways doesn't have the HP to run Flash. It is an issue of both RAM and CPU performance. I haven't looked at a 3GS so I can't comment on that platform.
The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...
-Clive
Yeah the war is going to be more of a problem as portable hardware gets more powerful. The iPad is an example of a platform that is likely to be able to benefit from Flash. I say likely because we still know very little about A4 and the amount of system RAM on the device.
The thing is after a couple of years working with my 3G I'm convinced Apple did the right thing keeping Flash off it. The platform is slow and laggy enough right now, running another interpreter would not be a smart thing at all. The coming next gen iPhone of he iPad are likely to be different stories. The smart thing here is to let the consumer decide when the pay off to enabling Flash is worth the risk. Because there is risk every time you startup Flash.
Dave
They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.
Exactly! That is one of two main issues with Flash on the iPhone. The other is navigation on a Flash site with your fingers.
Flash 10.1 beta, in Mac Safari, does use Core Animation, and just look at the numbers... poorer than HTML5.
BTW Streaming Learning Center? Do they have an agenda? Seems like it from the way they structured their "study."
The ?less content? argument is stupid and false. There?s no lack of content on the iDevices. I can find all the web apps, h.264 videos, and App Store apps I could ever want.
Yeah! Why should we accept what the word "less" means? It can mean anything we say it means!
"It seems reasonable to assume that if the Flash Player could access GPU-based hardware acceleration on the Mac (or iPod/iPhone/iPad), the difference between the CPU required for HTML5 playback and Flash playback would be very much narrowed, if not eliminated."
I think that is Job's (alleged) point. It seems reasonable, but it isn't being done. Xcode is free to download and available for adobe to use. All the objective C frameworks are in place to access the hardware.
The big question is why doesn't Adobe stop being lazy and start being progressive like they used to in the past. I yawned when I saw the CS3 to CS4 feature changes. Same story on flash. No improvements and only overload added.
Everything else I see beneath my Click2Flash cloak of awesome is either an advert or an embedded Video. Now as the adverts outnumber embedded videos I actually want to watch (that I can't watch in HTML5) by a factor of at least 100-1 I think I'm happy without Flash.
Imagine a worst situation. Flash on the iPad without the ability to turn it off... *shudder*
As a web developer by trade I've learned to harbour a deep and seething hatred for Flash. I've seen some excellent things done with it, but they've invariably been either useless eye-candy curiosities, Flow or 2d Portal.
They did back in 2006. It's called Core Animation.
Exactly! That is one of two main issues with Flash on the iPhone. The other is navigation on a Flash site with your fingers.
There wouldn't be a one-to-one relationship between flash and core animation. They do expose OpenGL (that Core Animation is based on) though. Apple of course supports CSS3 Animation as an alternative to Flash which was designed to be very similar to the basic features of Core Animation. CSS Animation can be used with the Canvas tag that was designed to be a simplified version of Quartz. Basically, Safari and Firefox have Core Animation light built right in to the HTML standard.
Perhaps because
1) 90% of people use a platform on which Flash performs better
2) There is much, much more content encoded for Flash than HTML5. If you had to pick better battery life with less access to content, or vice versa, which would it be?
The iPhone promised us "Full Internet," and Apple has yet to deliver on that statement. Instead they insist upon fighting a war with Adobe - for whose benefit? Certainly not the users...
-Clive
Uh no the 90% figure is a dream figure as Windows is heavily entrenched in the server room were Flash would be used at a front end at best if at all.
It's not abouit picking bettery battery life versus content. Flash is simply a container for multimedia content. There are other options in many cases which is why Apple is chosing a different path.
"Full Internet" LOL. Stop reading tripe from marketers. Flash doesn't signal full or half internet. In fact if we look at the origin of the internet technolog like Flash (proprietary) is an anathema to what guys like Tim Berners-Lee designed.
Apple is in fact looking at my best interest because they are working to keep the Internet free from proprietary HTML tags, proprietary encoding methods (Silverlight, Flash etc). HTML5 doesn't cost you $$$ to utilize and consumers always love a good price.
Flash shows significantly better performance, over a Mac, on a PC.
So why would anyone want a Mac over a PC?
Not better than HTML5.
That?s the point, troll boy.
I've said this on another thread here, but I'll repeat myself: Adobe doesn't get to unilaterally declare that Flash is "part of the Internet." To the extent that the word "Internet" has any useful meaning at all, it refers to a set of standardized protocols that anybody can implement and use. Flash doesn't meet that definition.
Flash is not part of "the whole Internet." Flash is merely Internet-adjacent.
I am SOOOOOO glad we're past that stage in the Internet when everyone had to write non-compliant code so that their site would work on Internet Explorer 6 perfectly but in another browser would likely crap out.
This stinks of the same reasoning. C'mon, if Microsoft can adjust to web standards, why the hell can't Adobe? Web Standards. Non-proprierity. Not locked in.
Wouldn't that be something?
I've said this on another thread here, but I'll repeat myself: Adobe doesn't get to unilaterally declare that Flash is "part of the Internet." To the extent that the word "Internet" has any useful meaning at all, it refers to a set of standardized protocols that anybody can implement and use. Flash doesn't meet that definition.
Flash is not part of "the whole Internet." Flash is merely Internet-adjacent.
Yes. When Joe Shmoe goes to a flash internet site, and it will not work, he realizes right away that Flash is not part of the whole internet. And as we all know, only geeks care about watching video adjacent to the internet.
The big question is why doesn't Adobe stop being lazy
Yeah! They are lazy! That is why Macs can't surf the (adjacent to the) internet without crashing! It is NOT Apple's fault! Adobe is lazy!