Not to mention Flash "doesn't" run "just fine" on netbooks. They become hot and the fans go crazy. And battery life is dramatically decreased. In this day and age little animated web games shouldn't make your computer seem like it wants to catch fire. You're comments assume none of use Windows machines to test your bullshit claims.
Have you tried a Dell Mini 10 with an Atom n450 chip? It handles Flash just fine, and it has no fan at all. With a 6 cell battery, the life is over 8 hours.
Here's what I get from this whole stupid "debate":
The iPad will sell great, which means companies should definitely consider html5 versions of their website specifically for the ipad. They and everyone else should just accept that Apple has decided no flash, and no matter how many good reasons there are to bring flash, there are twice as many made-up reasons that keep it off the ipad.
Flash is NOT dead, nor is it dying. In fact, the next versions of flash on Windows will actually have hardware support, so it's moving forward in a big way.
So what does all of this mean? Simple: Website will have two versions. HTML5 for ipad, and flash for anyone else.
That's it. That's the end of it. No more need to discuss it. That's how it will be and there's nothing anyone can say to change it.
That isn't it, nor the end of it and there is much to discuss. Other issues to discuss...
HTML5 over Flash for more modern and mobile browsers
Adobe et al. making better tools to harness the power of modern of webcode
Firefox getting official or unoffical H.264 support since Ogg Theora is a deadend
Flash 10.1 actually being released this year for all Android platforms having the same abilities as webcode and not affecting the battery life, performance, or user experience too badly
When and how the larger video sites will convert their sites to HTML5 video as deafault with Flash as the backup option (they'll almost all already using H.264)
When will certain elements outside of the HTML5 video tag, like the slideshow on Flickr or graph on Google Finance, offer a webcode option
An Adobe employee's blog working on the Mac version has announced future use of Core Animation which should reduce the load substanially
The real reason publishers don't want to give up Flash is because its a generally fool proof, highly intrusive method of ad syndication.
Most people aren't using Click2Flash or FlashBlock -- yet.
You have no idea how much more enjoyable web browsing is for me with Click2Flash. You don't realize how much Flash debilitates your computer until you dump it.
Great post. In addition to web pages in which I get frustrated because in order to see a two paragraph story I have to endure megabytes of flash downloading with flashing colors that could induce a seizure in an epileptic and annoying horn honks and "Congratulations! You've just won a FREE iPod Touch" soundovers, many sites have a splash screen that takes a long time to load and doesn't do anything except make a graphic swoop around the page and have a title come into focus.
Maybe 20% of my objection to Flash is performance based. The other 80% is that for whatever reason, the vast majority of Flash content is intrusive, annoying and practically never adds any value to the web page.
Great post. In addition to web pages in which I get frustrated because in order to see a two paragraph story I have to endure megabytes of flash downloading with flashing colors that could induce a seizure in an epileptic and annoying horn honks and "Congratulations! You've just won a FREE iPod Touch" soundovers, many sites have a splash screen that takes a long time to load and doesn't do anything except make a graphic swoop around the page and have a title come into focus.
Maybe 20% of my objection to Flash is performance based. The other 80% is that for whatever reason, the vast majority of Flash content is intrusive, annoying and practically never adds any value to the web page.
Unfortunately, the future of ads will be to use webcode and there won't a simple way of turning it off like there is with ClickToFlash. With JS, CSS Animations and Canvas all these current annoyances can already be created, albeit with more effort at this point and time.
Members of the media have expressed disagreement with Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' position that ditching Adobe Flash is a "trivial" move for publishers.
Contacts from a variety of media outlets, ranging from newspapers to advertisers to large mainstream media outlets spoke with Valleywag to talk about the difficulties they face in potentially abandoning Flash. The publication referred to comments from Jobs as "anti-Flash propaganda.".
Just another click bait article. Some small number of anonymous people don't like Flash big deal.
If you look at the real world, every major publisher but one has signed up for the iPad bookstore. Many magazine and newspaper publisher are supporting iPad.
The only ones who are complaining are the ones who complain about EVERYTHING Apple does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
If Adobe is as lazy as Steve says. If Flash is a data hog as Apple says. If Flash hasn't been updated for Mac as some posters have said resulting in endless beach balls on the Mac while the improved Flash for PC works great, even on Netbooks... Then maybe it is time Apple created its own "version" to satisfy all those squeaky wheel iPad wannabe content providers
Why would Apple want to do that? There are open alternatives (Javascript and html 5). Why should Apple create something new. That would be insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elliots11
I agree 100%. If Apple or even Adobe want to sell some software that lets you do the same thing a with a different type of file export, then more power to them. Obviously there's an impasse here, someone write a solution and make some cash.
No impasse at all. Apple says 'no flash'. Microsoft says 'no flash' on WIndows Mobile 7. Android says "limited Flash without full Flash capabilities - but it's late and no one knows when it will be out and it still stinks".
Meanwhile, youtube, Hulu, CBS, NYT, and others are rapidly creating their non-Flash web sites.
No impasee that I can see. Adobe lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
A huge chunk of the internet is built on Flash. It is a feature in some circumstances. It is a shame to see Apple taking yet another feature out because of its refusal to upgrade OS X underpinnings especially when even underpowered windows machines can run flash perfectly.
Bull. A bunch of porn and silly games is built on Flash. A number of lazy programmers use Flash - but they're rapidly dropping it as they realize that tens of millions (soon to be hundreds of millions) of the trendiest, most affluent Internet users can't access their web sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinge
I'm the biggest Apple fan boy, but I think SB is making a huge mistake here..... I think it's an issue that really divides people... give me a ClickToFlash type tool and let ME decide what content I can access....The problem (as the article states) is the divide between devs and designers.... Designers know Photoshop, illustrator, Flash, etc... There needs to be some kind of authoring environment for HTML5... I know Wookie Boy will disagree and have links to tutorials.... But until the majority of existing Flash content is replaced with HTML5 content, users will be unhappy with this. Until the iPad can offer a better experience, I'm sticking with my 3GS and my laptop.
Notice that the 3GS won't access Flash, either. If you insist on using a slow, buggy, insecure software, feel free. But no one else should suffer.
There's a good reason why Apple doesn't offer the option. Because people would be tempted to enable Flash. Then, when their system performance drops, battery life plummets, and the iPad gets to hot to hold on their lap, they'd blame Apple. Apple is right to drop it entirely.
Furthermore, if Apple offered Flash on the iPad, you wouldn't see all the developers reworking their websites into html 5 and Javascript as they're doing now - so Apple would be stuck with buggy Flash forever. It's much like the floppy drive thing. Sure, dropping the floppy drive caused a very small number of people minor inconvenience, but if they hadn't dropped it, they'd STILL be stuck with that lousy technology.
I use to be all about Adobe software and based that on Photoshop which I first started using Photoshop in 1997, so version 4.0.
Loved it, thought it was great software. I told many people that it was the best software out there. Photoshop did its job better than any other software did in its category. I fully believed that, up until Photoshop 7.
Since then it's become too bloated, too cumbersome, and it's just not fun to use anymore.
Flash; my opinion is above.
Quark XPress was much better and far easier to use than PageMaker. It pains me to say this ... but even Microsoft Publisher is easier to use than PageMaker ever was. Though trying to create something using Publisher as nice as I could PageMaker is an impossibility.
Dreamweaver is crap, though I used the Macromedia versions.
So yeah, with Adobe software ... I seek alternatives.
The iPhone has changed the way that people browse the web. They actually do it all the time on their iPhones that already don't run Flash. So tell me, if you are going to a media publisher that already disregards over 42 million eyeballs on the web, do you really worry about their ability to stop the success of iPads simply because they won't play flash?
Hey look, it's iGenius gracing us with his presence yet again.
Haven't you learned yet that balanced, thoughtout posts are what keep people from thinking you are a troll. All you're doing is reinforcing that with this new alias.
Yep. Although he can't seem to decide which persona to go with: fatuous fan boy or relentless critic.
That isn't it, nor the end of it and there is much to discuss. Other issues to discuss...
HTML5 over Flash for more modern and mobile browsers
Adobe et al. making better tools to harness the power of modern of webcode
Firefox getting official or unoffical H.264 support since Ogg Theora is a deadend
Flash 10.1 actually being released this year for all Android platforms having the same abilities as webcode and not affecting the battery life, performance, or user experience too badly
When and how the larger video sites will convert their sites to HTML5 video as deafault with Flash as the backup option (they'll almost all already using H.264)
When will certain elements outside of the HTML5 video tag, like the slideshow on Flickr or graph on Google Finance, offer a webcode option
An Adobe employee's blog working on the Mac version has announced future use of Core Animation which should reduce the load substanially
PS: Flash has no EOL in sight, but parts are clearly being ready to be offloaded to more efficient options.
1: The best browsers will support both
2: pass
3: Who cares if it does? It's one browser out of like what, 5 big ones?
4: As much as I love Android, these forums are for Apple news lol
5: It's easy to determine what browser a person is using. HTML5 as default for those that don't support flash is easy. HTML5 as default for everyone? EXTREMELY UNLIKELY! Flash is better than html5. BTW, I was at the Apple store today and I ran hulu on a macbook air. It ran fine! What's all the hubub, bub?
6: Who here could know that?
7: That's good news. Always good to hear something that completely undermines the misinformation the majority of people around here constantly try to push (which is that Adobe is lazy and doesn't care about flash on osx.)
BTW, I was at the Apple store today and I ran hulu on a macbook air. It ran fine! What's all the hubub, bub?
Was that ever in question? netbooks with Atom processors and 1GB RAM ? which are much slower than C2D and 2GB RAM, which the MBA uses ? can play Hulu just fine in 360p but would stutter on 480p with Flash ≤10.0.x, with Windows of OSx86.
Still, technically being able to run isn't the only concern for, not an Atom processor, but an ARM processor. The performance of the rest of the system, usability from a touch UI and the battery consumption are still major issues that Adobe, at the end of March 2010, is still working on for an open platform that has been public long before iPhone OS.
Computers and processors used to get faster and faster.
But they hit a thermal wall, it's not practical to lug along a 500lb cooling system and battery for a laptop.
Software and plug ins got more complicated with features and everyone got used to that.
But now a whole line of new products appear with less capable processors and integrated graphics.
So now all those plug ins like Flash are overweight for the hardware, is it Adobe's fault?
According to what I read on Slashdot, Flash really doesn't take too much more CPU than HTML5 or Javascript. It's was designed to be easier for designers to be creative and not technical.
It's the hardware that has been purposely crippled, Flash is a victim.
Apple keeps changing it's OS so darn much, it's hard for any developer to keep up and make a profit.
The CPU's crank on Mac's because Apple doesn't allow GPU hardware acceleration.
Does Apple really think publishers are going to give up the ease of use and creativity of Flash and hire a bunch of costly HTML5/JavaScript coders just to meet the needs of a underpowered iPad hardware?
It's not looking too good for the iPad.
What kind of nonsense is this?!? Snow Leopard expressly states that to use QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration and OpenCL the Mac in question you need a graphic card that has a GPU such as NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or ATI Radeon HD 4850 and newer.
Apples does allow GPU hardware acceleration; its part of Snow Leopard.
COme back when you have a clue on what the Mac can and cannot do. Sheesh.
But they hit a thermal wall, it's not practical to lug along a 500lb
cooling system and battery for a laptop.
Partly true. As CPU's get more powerful they generate more heat. Thinner CPU's getting better about heat produced and power consumption. My MBP unibody doesn't weight weigh more than older MBP's or power books and its less that 500 lbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn
It's not looking too good for the iPad.
Yeh, just increased production figures for 2010 to 8-10M up from previous 5M figure.
I make flash games (third year now), and I have to say that Flash Player works just fine on OSX, on my 2.0GHz Core2Duo Macbook. It could be faster if Apple enabled those hooks the Flash Player needs for hardware acceleration... Steve must be furious, because he didn't invent Flash.
Apple has enabled those hooks in Snow Leopard and Adobe in it infinite stupidity still hasn't made use of them.
Comments
Not to mention Flash "doesn't" run "just fine" on netbooks. They become hot and the fans go crazy. And battery life is dramatically decreased. In this day and age little animated web games shouldn't make your computer seem like it wants to catch fire. You're comments assume none of use Windows machines to test your bullshit claims.
Have you tried a Dell Mini 10 with an Atom n450 chip? It handles Flash just fine, and it has no fan at all. With a 6 cell battery, the life is over 8 hours.
I agree that some older netbooks were inadequate.
.
...
and took 100's of years to sort out which "System" was truly the "best" and which would be the "Standard" in the Kingdom.
...
Starting to see how we can learn from History ?
Yeah - unless you are able to interoperate and use all popular current systems, you'll be screwed for a long, long time.
Right, so you didn't actually own one like me, my sister, my brother or my friend. This is telling.
Which architecture do their netbooks use?
Here's what I get from this whole stupid "debate":
The iPad will sell great, which means companies should definitely consider html5 versions of their website specifically for the ipad. They and everyone else should just accept that Apple has decided no flash, and no matter how many good reasons there are to bring flash, there are twice as many made-up reasons that keep it off the ipad.
Flash is NOT dead, nor is it dying. In fact, the next versions of flash on Windows will actually have hardware support, so it's moving forward in a big way.
So what does all of this mean? Simple: Website will have two versions. HTML5 for ipad, and flash for anyone else.
That's it. That's the end of it. No more need to discuss it. That's how it will be and there's nothing anyone can say to change it.
That isn't it, nor the end of it and there is much to discuss. Other issues to discuss...
- HTML5 over Flash for more modern and mobile browsers
- Adobe et al. making better tools to harness the power of modern of webcode
- Firefox getting official or unoffical H.264 support since Ogg Theora is a deadend
- Flash 10.1 actually being released this year for all Android platforms having the same abilities as webcode and not affecting the battery life, performance, or user experience too badly
- When and how the larger video sites will convert their sites to HTML5 video as deafault with Flash as the backup option (they'll almost all already using H.264)
- When will certain elements outside of the HTML5 video tag, like the slideshow on Flickr or graph on Google Finance, offer a webcode option
- An Adobe employee's blog working on the Mac version has announced future use of Core Animation which should reduce the load substanially
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...too name a few.PS: Flash has no EOL in sight, but parts are clearly being ready to be offloaded to more efficient options.
This works really well on my MBP and would work equally as well on my iPhone or on an iPad. There is no technical reason why this could not be done.
Everybody is moving on over to HTML5. And besides, Adobe is lazy.
decided it was not worth a permanent ban.
Those permanent bans are impossible to get around. Not worth it.
The real reason publishers don't want to give up Flash is because its a generally fool proof, highly intrusive method of ad syndication.
Most people aren't using Click2Flash or FlashBlock -- yet.
You have no idea how much more enjoyable web browsing is for me with Click2Flash. You don't realize how much Flash debilitates your computer until you dump it.
Great post. In addition to web pages in which I get frustrated because in order to see a two paragraph story I have to endure megabytes of flash downloading with flashing colors that could induce a seizure in an epileptic and annoying horn honks and "Congratulations! You've just won a FREE iPod Touch" soundovers, many sites have a splash screen that takes a long time to load and doesn't do anything except make a graphic swoop around the page and have a title come into focus.
Maybe 20% of my objection to Flash is performance based. The other 80% is that for whatever reason, the vast majority of Flash content is intrusive, annoying and practically never adds any value to the web page.
Great post. In addition to web pages in which I get frustrated because in order to see a two paragraph story I have to endure megabytes of flash downloading with flashing colors that could induce a seizure in an epileptic and annoying horn honks and "Congratulations! You've just won a FREE iPod Touch" soundovers, many sites have a splash screen that takes a long time to load and doesn't do anything except make a graphic swoop around the page and have a title come into focus.
Maybe 20% of my objection to Flash is performance based. The other 80% is that for whatever reason, the vast majority of Flash content is intrusive, annoying and practically never adds any value to the web page.
Unfortunately, the future of ads will be to use webcode and there won't a simple way of turning it off like there is with ClickToFlash. With JS, CSS Animations and Canvas all these current annoyances can already be created, albeit with more effort at this point and time.
Members of the media have expressed disagreement with Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' position that ditching Adobe Flash is a "trivial" move for publishers.
Contacts from a variety of media outlets, ranging from newspapers to advertisers to large mainstream media outlets spoke with Valleywag to talk about the difficulties they face in potentially abandoning Flash. The publication referred to comments from Jobs as "anti-Flash propaganda.".
Just another click bait article. Some small number of anonymous people don't like Flash big deal.
If you look at the real world, every major publisher but one has signed up for the iPad bookstore. Many magazine and newspaper publisher are supporting iPad.
The only ones who are complaining are the ones who complain about EVERYTHING Apple does.
If Adobe is as lazy as Steve says. If Flash is a data hog as Apple says. If Flash hasn't been updated for Mac as some posters have said resulting in endless beach balls on the Mac while the improved Flash for PC works great, even on Netbooks... Then maybe it is time Apple created its own "version" to satisfy all those squeaky wheel iPad wannabe content providers
Why would Apple want to do that? There are open alternatives (Javascript and html 5). Why should Apple create something new. That would be insane.
I agree 100%. If Apple or even Adobe want to sell some software that lets you do the same thing a with a different type of file export, then more power to them. Obviously there's an impasse here, someone write a solution and make some cash.
No impasse at all. Apple says 'no flash'. Microsoft says 'no flash' on WIndows Mobile 7. Android says "limited Flash without full Flash capabilities - but it's late and no one knows when it will be out and it still stinks".
Meanwhile, youtube, Hulu, CBS, NYT, and others are rapidly creating their non-Flash web sites.
No impasee that I can see. Adobe lost.
A huge chunk of the internet is built on Flash. It is a feature in some circumstances. It is a shame to see Apple taking yet another feature out because of its refusal to upgrade OS X underpinnings especially when even underpowered windows machines can run flash perfectly.
Bull. A bunch of porn and silly games is built on Flash. A number of lazy programmers use Flash - but they're rapidly dropping it as they realize that tens of millions (soon to be hundreds of millions) of the trendiest, most affluent Internet users can't access their web sites.
I'm the biggest Apple fan boy, but I think SB is making a huge mistake here..... I think it's an issue that really divides people... give me a ClickToFlash type tool and let ME decide what content I can access....The problem (as the article states) is the divide between devs and designers.... Designers know Photoshop, illustrator, Flash, etc... There needs to be some kind of authoring environment for HTML5... I know Wookie Boy will disagree and have links to tutorials.... But until the majority of existing Flash content is replaced with HTML5 content, users will be unhappy with this. Until the iPad can offer a better experience, I'm sticking with my 3GS and my laptop.
Notice that the 3GS won't access Flash, either. If you insist on using a slow, buggy, insecure software, feel free. But no one else should suffer.
There's a good reason why Apple doesn't offer the option. Because people would be tempted to enable Flash. Then, when their system performance drops, battery life plummets, and the iPad gets to hot to hold on their lap, they'd blame Apple. Apple is right to drop it entirely.
Furthermore, if Apple offered Flash on the iPad, you wouldn't see all the developers reworking their websites into html 5 and Javascript as they're doing now - so Apple would be stuck with buggy Flash forever. It's much like the floppy drive thing. Sure, dropping the floppy drive caused a very small number of people minor inconvenience, but if they hadn't dropped it, they'd STILL be stuck with that lousy technology.
Loved it, thought it was great software. I told many people that it was the best software out there. Photoshop did its job better than any other software did in its category. I fully believed that, up until Photoshop 7.
Since then it's become too bloated, too cumbersome, and it's just not fun to use anymore.
Flash; my opinion is above.
Quark XPress was much better and far easier to use than PageMaker. It pains me to say this ... but even Microsoft Publisher is easier to use than PageMaker ever was. Though trying to create something using Publisher as nice as I could PageMaker is an impossibility.
Dreamweaver is crap, though I used the Macromedia versions.
So yeah, with Adobe software ... I seek alternatives.
Hey look, it's iGenius gracing us with his presence yet again.
Haven't you learned yet that balanced, thoughtout posts are what keep people from thinking you are a troll. All you're doing is reinforcing that with this new alias.
Yep. Although he can't seem to decide which persona to go with: fatuous fan boy or relentless critic.
..... media publisher that already disregards over 42 million eyeballs ......
42x2.
That isn't it, nor the end of it and there is much to discuss. Other issues to discuss...
- HTML5 over Flash for more modern and mobile browsers
- Adobe et al. making better tools to harness the power of modern of webcode
- Firefox getting official or unoffical H.264 support since Ogg Theora is a deadend
- Flash 10.1 actually being released this year for all Android platforms having the same abilities as webcode and not affecting the battery life, performance, or user experience too badly
- When and how the larger video sites will convert their sites to HTML5 video as deafault with Flash as the backup option (they'll almost all already using H.264)
- When will certain elements outside of the HTML5 video tag, like the slideshow on Flickr or graph on Google Finance, offer a webcode option
- An Adobe employee's blog working on the Mac version has announced future use of Core Animation which should reduce the load substanially
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...too name a few.PS: Flash has no EOL in sight, but parts are clearly being ready to be offloaded to more efficient options.
1: The best browsers will support both
2: pass
3: Who cares if it does? It's one browser out of like what, 5 big ones?
4: As much as I love Android, these forums are for Apple news lol
5: It's easy to determine what browser a person is using. HTML5 as default for those that don't support flash is easy. HTML5 as default for everyone? EXTREMELY UNLIKELY! Flash is better than html5. BTW, I was at the Apple store today and I ran hulu on a macbook air. It ran fine! What's all the hubub, bub?
6: Who here could know that?
7: That's good news. Always good to hear something that completely undermines the misinformation the majority of people around here constantly try to push (which is that Adobe is lazy and doesn't care about flash on osx.)
BTW, I was at the Apple store today and I ran hulu on a macbook air. It ran fine! What's all the hubub, bub?
Was that ever in question? netbooks with Atom processors and 1GB RAM ? which are much slower than C2D and 2GB RAM, which the MBA uses ? can play Hulu just fine in 360p but would stutter on 480p with Flash ≤10.0.x, with Windows of OSx86.
Still, technically being able to run isn't the only concern for, not an Atom processor, but an ARM processor. The performance of the rest of the system, usability from a touch UI and the battery consumption are still major issues that Adobe, at the end of March 2010, is still working on for an open platform that has been public long before iPhone OS.
Late to this party but take a look at history.
Computers and processors used to get faster and faster.
But they hit a thermal wall, it's not practical to lug along a 500lb cooling system and battery for a laptop.
Software and plug ins got more complicated with features and everyone got used to that.
But now a whole line of new products appear with less capable processors and integrated graphics.
So now all those plug ins like Flash are overweight for the hardware, is it Adobe's fault?
According to what I read on Slashdot, Flash really doesn't take too much more CPU than HTML5 or Javascript. It's was designed to be easier for designers to be creative and not technical.
It's the hardware that has been purposely crippled, Flash is a victim.
Apple keeps changing it's OS so darn much, it's hard for any developer to keep up and make a profit.
The CPU's crank on Mac's because Apple doesn't allow GPU hardware acceleration.
Does Apple really think publishers are going to give up the ease of use and creativity of Flash and hire a bunch of costly HTML5/JavaScript coders just to meet the needs of a underpowered iPad hardware?
It's not looking too good for the iPad.
What kind of nonsense is this?!? Snow Leopard expressly states that to use QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration and OpenCL the Mac in question you need a graphic card that has a GPU such as NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or ATI Radeon HD 4850 and newer.
Apples does allow GPU hardware acceleration; its part of Snow Leopard.
COme back when you have a clue on what the Mac can and cannot do. Sheesh.
Late to this party but take a look at history.
Computers and processors used to get faster and faster.
Yeh, bummer, they just keep getting more powerful at the same clock speed
.http://9to5mac.com/arrandale-benchma...-intel-2309439
But they hit a thermal wall, it's not practical to lug along a 500lb
cooling system and battery for a laptop.
Partly true. As CPU's get more powerful they generate more heat. Thinner CPU's getting better about heat produced and power consumption. My MBP unibody doesn't weight weigh more than older MBP's or power books and its less that 500 lbs.
It's not looking too good for the iPad.
Yeh, just increased production figures for 2010 to 8-10M up from previous 5M figure.
I make flash games (third year now), and I have to say that Flash Player works just fine on OSX, on my 2.0GHz Core2Duo Macbook. It could be faster if Apple enabled those hooks the Flash Player needs for hardware acceleration... Steve must be furious, because he didn't invent Flash.
Apple has enabled those hooks in Snow Leopard and Adobe in it infinite stupidity still hasn't made use of them.