Apple highlights interactive capabilities of HTML5

11012141516

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 319
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


    Then why do users of some other browsers get the message "You'll need to download Safari" when they click on those demos? What exactly are the criteria that Apple is using for which browser gets to view those pages?



    It's just a cheap user-agent detection gimmick to get people to download a browser they'd otherwise never bother with.



    Those of us enjoying extensible browsers were able to find a plugin for browsing with multiple user agents, and got into the page with no problem.



    On Firefox most of it works fine, and I'm told that on Chrome it's nearly or at 100%.



    Since all three are based on WebKit, it looks like Apple has another contribution to post to the repository to keep their FOSS usage in order....
  • Reply 222 of 319
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by success View Post


    Wow I'm on a Macbook / Safari and the Tron video won't even play. Spinning beach ball. And now the fans are starting as if the video was like Flash



    The gallery works because it's simply photos but not the video.



    shame shame



    not to mention the controls look like kindergarten buttons.



    EDIT: Quit safari, now my fans stopped.



    LOL, you're hilarious. I have a 2 1/2 year old 2.4Ghz iMac (w/o h.264 hardware acceleration) and Safari plays it fine. Safari is taking up 12% of the CPU. I found the same video on YouTube and Flash was using 72%.



    Give me a break.
  • Reply 223 of 319
    lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TailsToo View Post


    This is really stupid on Apple's part. When you're trying to say how open standards are better, don't force users to download your browser - you've totally undermined your position!



    I hope Apple pulls this embarrassing page quickly.



    FireFox doesn't support nearly all the HTML5 features Safari does but WebKit and Chrome do. Of course Apple is going to say download our browser when it's THEIR site.



    FireFox and Opera are way behind in their support of HTML5 so to truly push the technology they have to use a browser that has great HTML5 support.
  • Reply 224 of 319
    lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by suzysatsuma View Post


    This is fail.



    http://html5test.com



    Chrome: 142/160

    Safari: 113/160.

    (@foad who said Chrome is behind Safari for having html5 support)





    And requiring a quicktime plugin?



    Apple just lost the moral high ground in the crusade against proprietary flash. :P



    HTML5 video uses whatever plugin is required by the system to play the video. In fact if the video was OGG Vorbis and you had Perian installed it would also use QuickTime. That's what handles video. On Windows that would most likely show Windows Media and on Linux whatever player is used to play video... probably VLC.



    Safari uses QuickTime so of course it's going to show video in QuickTime.



    Also my Nightly build of WebKit which is the open source version of Safari shows 137 out of 160. Release version of Safari is always behind nightly WebKit.
  • Reply 225 of 319
    lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    It's just a cheap user-agent detection gimmick to get people to download a browser they'd otherwise never bother with.



    Those of us enjoying extensible browsers were able to find a plugin for browsing with multiple user agents, and got into the page with no problem.



    On Firefox most of it works fine, and I'm told that on Chrome it's nearly or at 100%.



    Since all three are based on WebKit, it looks like Apple has another contribution to post to the repository to keep their FOSS usage in order....



    The only one here full of it is you. FireFox is NOT based on WebKit only Chrome and Safari are. FireFox is based on Gecko which isn't fully compliant with HTML5.



    This test isn't as full a test as you'd expect either. The more rigorous test is here:



    http://acid3.acidtests.org/



    Safari and WebKit score 100/100 (not a percentage). FireFox is way below and Opera is pretty good although it shows 100/100 it does error on one of the tests so doesn't get a full pass.
  • Reply 226 of 319
    lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Looks like you have a computer. Nothing else can be discerned from your post.



    Apparently your discernment is highly lacking.



    Clearly there is something wrong when a high end Mac running nothing but a window with Flash in it causing the machine to run at 100.4% CPU and running with 728.5MB of physical RAM and 804.5MB of virtual RAM for a total of 1.5GB RAM usage.



    If you see nothing wrong with that then bugger off to the PC world where crap like that is expected.
  • Reply 227 of 319
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by suzysatsuma View Post


    This is fail.



    http://html5test.com



    Chrome: 142/160

    Safari: 113/160.

    (@foad who said Chrome is behind Safari for having html5 support)





    And requiring a quicktime plugin?



    Apple just lost the moral high ground in the crusade against proprietary flash. :P



    You missed a few things. Mobile Safari scores 133/160 in v4.0, this doesn't appear to be testing any CSS3 which is a huge part of these demos, some of those things (Ogg, for example) we know will never come, you didn't test the nightlies which are surely closer to the next version of Safari than to Chrome 5 which recently came out (note, it's expected Safari will be a focus next week), and, most importantly, that site doesn't seem to be testing CSS which is a large part of th demos Apple is promoting.
  • Reply 228 of 319
    jahonenjahonen Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You missed a few things. Mobile Safari scores 133/160 in v4.0, this doesn't appear to be testing any CSS3 which is a huge part of these demos, some of those things (Ogg, for example) we know will never come, you didn't test the nightlies which are surely closer to the next version of Safari than to Chrome 5 which recently came out (note, it's expected Safari will be a focus next week), and, most importantly, that site doesn't seem to be testing CSS which is a large part of th demos Apple is promoting.



    Hmm. Wasn't CSS3 an optional addon to HTML5? So why include it? Just so Apple would get a better score?



    If you want to try and pimp up Apple score by going the Nightly route, you'd have to test the nightlies and Betas of the all the competition as well. Do you know when the next Safari build is coming out to end users? (yes I know WWDC is close). How about others? Which one's are bringing out a browser this year? Then test their nightlies and Betas as well. Please do that by all means. It would be interesting academically, but hasn't got that much to do with real end users.



    Regs, Jarkko
  • Reply 229 of 319
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Nothing to add to the conversation other than a few observations:



    -- The average person can't be bothered to read, and when they do try, they can't comprehend it.

    -- They also think that after their lack of comprehension, they are obligated to come to a forum and post that fact as a confirmation to their lack of basic reading skills.

    -- If left up to the average Joe Six-Pack, we would still be using typewriters and Telex machines... possibly Morse Code(?) Nah... too difficult.

    -- Problem-solving and future possibilities does not seem to be a Western Cultural attribute any longer. If it doesn't work NOW(!)... it NEVER will! Right?

    -- Because Apple doesn't reverse-engineer Flash, Firefox, IE, Opera, Chrome, etc. (which they probably could do) to make it work with future web standards (and a DEMO none the less!), they should ABSOLUTELY NOT show off what THEIR very own "futuristic" Safari or devices can do. NEVER!

    -- Trust me: if it (your website) doesn't work or look good on a mobile device, including 'Droid, iDevices, or Win7 Mobile, within the next 2 years... you can hang it up.

    -- Pageviews and mobile connection devices will dwarf by the power of 5, all desktop access combined.

    -- Keep on standing still people... and get ran over by the HTML5 Train, because that's what will be powering all those mobile devices... and it appears you're comatose on the tracks to the future.



    PS: the guy that linked to the horrid Flash website, meant just that: it's an example of Flash-Friggin'-Fluff!

    Worthless!

    For losers (not "lo-o-sers")!

    They're thinkin' their site over there doesn't stink. It's putrid!!! Got it?
  • Reply 230 of 319
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Looks like you have a computer. Nothing else can be discerned from your post.



    Look closely:



    100.4% CPU utilization by the Flash plugin,,, after the windows containing Flash had been closed.



    .
  • Reply 231 of 319
    groovetubegroovetube Posts: 557member
    I've had 100% cpu by safari alone and general web tricks. No flash.



    Whoopdee freaking doo!



    Now back to the subject. the html5 demos run fine on my iphone. Though, I'd like to see more intense examples, more than just playing a video or flipping an image. I noticed hen I watched the cpu usage, if you put the text in half alpha and rotated it, cpu usage spiked. What will happen when you much more going on on the page?
  • Reply 232 of 319
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Look closely:



    100.4% CPU utilization by the Flash plugin,,, after the windows containing Flash had been closed.



    .





    Sorry, I'm a scientist. I don't see any evidence just a picture. It is easy to write crappy code that will crash your computer. It is also easy to write clean code that will run with minimal resource requirements. All I see is a picture, no code, no evidence and no control sample. Nice try.



    Besides, you are trying to make it look like 100% CPU usage is a bad thing. I wish FCP could use 100% of any core when rendering a movie.
  • Reply 233 of 319
    ediediediedi Posts: 22member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    What good are supposedly open standards if they only work on the latest hardware and the latest browser?



    Apple needs to post a web page that is comparable to Flash in terms of complexity with animation, audio and lots of interactivity. Then we can make a fair comparison.



    The example pages are a bit underwhelming.



    Totally agree regarding complexity and interactivity.



    One other question comes to mind: say these standards become widespread, will this result in all (for instance) web photo galleries looking the same (or choosing from a limited set of styles)?
  • Reply 234 of 319
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Copy this HTML 5 code and save it in a file with .html extension. Load the file in Safari and check you activity CPU usage.



    Code:




    <html>

    <head></head>

    <body>



    <canvas width="800" height="450"></canvas>

    <script>



    var context = document.getElementsByTagName('canvas')[0].getContext('2d');



    var lastX = context.canvas.width * Math.random();

    var lastY = context.canvas.height * Math.random();

    var hue = 0;

    function line() {

    context.save();

    context.translate(context.canvas.width/2, context.canvas.height/2);

    context.scale(0.9, 0.9);

    context.translate(-context.canvas.width/2, -context.canvas.height/2);

    context.beginPath();

    context.lineWidth = 5 + Math.random() * 10;

    context.moveTo(lastX, lastY);

    lastX = context.canvas.width * Math.random();

    lastY = context.canvas.height * Math.random();

    context.bezierCurveTo(context.canvas.width * Math.random(),

    context.canvas.height * Math.random(),

    context.canvas.width * Math.random(),

    context.canvas.height * Math.random(),

    lastX, lastY);



    hue = hue + 10 * Math.random();

    context.strokeStyle = 'hsl(' + hue + ', 50%, 50%)';

    context.shadowColor = 'white';

    context.shadowBlur = 100;

    context.stroke();

    context.restore();

    }

    setInterval(line, 50);



    function blank() {

    context.fillStyle = 'rgba(0,0,0,0.1)';

    context.fillRect(0, 0, context.canvas.width, context.canvas.height);

    }

    setInterval(blank, 40);



    </script>



    </body>

    </html>









    Now find the part that says shadowBlur and change the value from 100 to 1000. Now give it a try.
  • Reply 235 of 319
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    I wonder if Apple's latest stunt will spur a wave of browser-blocking antics across the internet:



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



    Then Apple fanboys will respond by blocking non-Safari browsers from their own sites.



    Eventually, the browser developers themselves (Microsoft, Mozilla, etc.) will step in and start making exclusive corporate sponsorship deals with online retailers, banks, online newspapers, magazines, etc. to only support their browser and block others.



    Apple could then take action in one of two ways:



    They could drop this stunt and stop blocking other browsers. Steve will write an open letter called "Can't We All Just Get Along?" Apple will be hailed by Apple fanboys as the champion of open standards.



    Or Apple could start making exclusive deals of their own. Apple then starts blocking even more of their web site from non-Safari browsers. The Apple fanboys will of course rationalize and defend Apple for doing the same thing that Micro$oft gets criticized for.



    The web eventually becomes even more fragmented than it already is. Then everybody starts pointing fingers at each other, each claiming that it is the other's fault.
  • Reply 236 of 319
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Sorry, I'm a scientist. I don't see any evidence just a picture. It is easy to write crappy code that will crash your computer. It is also easy to write clean code that will run with minimal resource requirements. All I see is a picture, no code, no evidence and no control sample. Nice try.



    Besides, you are trying to make it look like 100% CPU usage is a bad thing. I wish FCP could use 100% of any core when rendering a movie.



    I see your point! The "picture" was taken 09/29/09 using SnapzPro to capture the Activity monitor display. I annotated it with Preview.



    I was on a forum discussion about how poorly Flash performs on a Mac.



    I typically run 1 Safari window with about 19 tabs (MacRumors, DF, AI...). and several other windows as needed (usually about 10-15) pointing to specific topics of interest... say a forum thread that I am following.



    I run Click2Flash to prevent automatic loading of Flash... sometimes overriding (loading Flash) for a particular video.



    On this particular day I had three windows open where Flash had been run... the all were stopped.



    While posting to the Flash thread, noticed that I was getting delays while typing and position. So, I fired up Activity Monitor. Then I closed all the Flash windows and several others that were no longer needed.



    Performance improved quite a bit, but was still sluggish. I noticed the Flash Plugin usage, than captured and posted it as described above.



    Interesting, if you will look a little closer, the second line down from the highlighted "Flash Plugin" is the activity for the entire Safari browser at 5.4% CPU (1 twentieth of the Flash plugin) and lower Real and Virtual memory figures.



    Later, I killed the Flash plugin task and performance returned to normal.









    That's what happened, to the best of my recollection, and why this particular image even exists.



    In the past I have programmed in Flash (described on other AI threads) and had performance issues on my platform of choice, the Mac.



    In one instance I worked with MacroMedia and Adobe people to see if they could determine why a particular Flash application performed poorly on the Mac, but fine on the PC. After quite a bit of effort, I was told by these Flash experts that that's the way it was on the Mac, and they recommended a JavaScript/hidden frame approach instead. Again this is posted in another thread which I will not repeat here.



    Finally, based on my personal experience, I do not like Flash (Ads, Performance, Crashes, Usability). However, I have better things to do than gen-up false situations and phony images to knock Flash. There is no vendetta here, just a willingness to offer whatever factual information I can to support my experience, opinion and assertions.



    As with anything on the web (or in print) you are free to believe me/them, or not!



    .
  • Reply 237 of 319
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Finally, based on my personal experience, I do not like Flash (Ads, Performance, Crashes, Usability). However, I have better things to do than gen-up false situations and phony images to knock Flash. There is no vendetta here, just a willingness to offer whatever factual information I can to support my experience, opinion and assertions.



    As with anything on the web (or in print) you are free to believe me/them, or not!



    Not saying you are lying. By your own admission you had 20 different things going on at the same time. We have no way of knowing the quality of the Flash code, any other conflicts, or user error might have been involved. Just way too many variables for any valid conclusions. Clearly your personal bias against Flash is not going to lend itself to a fair evaluation either. Just try my sample code above if you think stupid programming can't exist in HTML 5 as well.
  • Reply 238 of 319
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Copy this HTML 5 code and save it in a file with .html extension. Load the file in Safari and check you activity CPU usage.



    Code:




    <html>

    <head></head>

    <body>



    <canvas width="800" height="450"></canvas>

    <script>



    var context = document.getElementsByTagName('canvas')[0].getContext('2d');



    var lastX = context.canvas.width * Math.random();

    var lastY = context.canvas.height * Math.random();

    var hue = 0;

    function line() {

    context.save();

    context.translate(context.canvas.width/2, context.canvas.height/2);

    context.scale(0.9, 0.9);

    context.translate(-context.canvas.width/2, -context.canvas.height/2);

    context.beginPath();

    context.lineWidth = 5 + Math.random() * 10;

    context.moveTo(lastX, lastY);

    lastX = context.canvas.width * Math.random();

    lastY = context.canvas.height * Math.random();

    context.bezierCurveTo(context.canvas.width * Math.random(),

    context.canvas.height * Math.random(),

    context.canvas.width * Math.random(),

    context.canvas.height * Math.random(),

    lastX, lastY);



    hue = hue + 10 * Math.random();

    context.strokeStyle = 'hsl(' + hue + ', 50%, 50%)';

    context.shadowColor = 'white';

    context.shadowBlur = 100;

    context.stroke();

    context.restore();

    }

    setInterval(line, 50);



    function blank() {

    context.fillStyle = 'rgba(0,0,0,0.1)';

    context.fillRect(0, 0, context.canvas.width, context.canvas.height);

    }

    setInterval(blank, 40);



    </script>



    </body>

    </html>









    Now find the part that says shadowBlur and change the value from 100 to 1000. Now give it a try.



    Mmm... It does significantly degrade performance. With only that one window open It spiked CPU at 91%... No I am not going to publish a picture



    However, I was able to open several other windows and they performed well-- with minimal testing.



    To what do you attribute the slowdown?



    I tried various values and the tipping point appears about 500.



    Is this a defect in HTML5, JavaScript, The Safari implementation, poor programming or a combination of the above.



    I don't do web development anymore, so I am not up-to-speed with HTML5... looking for answers from those with more knowledge and experience.



    The reason I ask, is that at some point I will, likely, need to become proficient to support/develop iAds, etc.



    TIA



    Dick



    .
  • Reply 239 of 319
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Transparency is the killer for HTML 5 and Flash. Because transparency is such an easy thing to do in Flash and the results are visually pleasing, you see it everywhere. The power required to add the shadowBlur and render the underlying objects while animating the top layer is where the whole thing goes south.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Mmm... It does significantly degrade performance. With only that one window open It spiked CPU at 91%... No I am not going to publish a picture



    However, I was able to open several other windows and they performed well-- with minimal testing.



    To what do you attribute the slowdown?



    I tried various values and the tipping point appears about 500.



    Is this a defect in HTML5, JavaScript, The Safari implementation, poor programming or a combination of the above.



    I don't do web development anymore, so I am not up-to-speed with HTML5... looking for answers from those with more knowledge and experience.



    The reason I ask, is that at some point I will, likely, need to become proficient to support/develop iAds, etc.



    TIA



    Dick



    .



  • Reply 240 of 319
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



    .
Sign In or Register to comment.