gain, it's not like I don't think we would have a better web if Flash wasn't abused like it is at the moment, but Lynch is actually not far off the truth with this comment. The review mentioned only really tested how much battery life advertising takes up.
This is correct.
The only fair comparison that can be made at this time is that of HTML5 video to Flash video. HTML5 wins hands down in cpu usage. In my test with the exact same video with code that I wrote, HTML5 uses 19% compared to Flash 36%. Both of these numbers are quite satisfactory for rich media.
If I was to write a Flash swf that did absolutely nothing, the Flash plugin only uses 5% in an idle state. Flash was never intended to be a video player, it just turned out to be the best way to display video a decade ago, but it was a kluge at first and later improved with Flash 8 from Macromedia. It has remained pretty much in the same state since.
Flash is still the best way to display really fancy animations and interactive presentations. By the time the canvas tag and javascript are able to do what Flash can currently do, I'd be willing to bet it will use every bit as much battery and cpu as Flash does today.
[QUOTE=tjw;1748843]I agree banners suck and everything but the fact remains. There is no technology that matches flash for rich web content. If there is, you will explain how it is possible to currently make a website like http://www.seecorridor.com/ without flash. This is what designers and brand managers use.
I'll field this.
Standards compliant css and javascript supports opacity, positioning, z-index, and image stretching and clipping. I don't see anything in that site that can't be done without flash. There are effects that only flash can do within reason (such as rotation and such), but that site doesn't have any of them.
It's a frustrating, CPU taxing, battery sucking fact that most people use flash because they're ignorant of other options. I'm still happily using a 2002 era titanium powerbook. You know why it's still snappy and usable? I disabled flash.
When it comes to Flash vs. Apple, this site is like watching Fox News for political information.
Not even slightly true. The whole Flex API is open source. You can download it for free on Adobe's site and program with an open source environment like Eclipse. Frankly, I find it easier than Adobe's own options for creating Flash content.
Flash flourished in the past because Javascript was designed by a committee of squabbling rivals and was inconsistant for both the author and end-user. Javascript was simply not suitable for creating the media web we now know. Flash was.
HTML5 is also being designed by committee and I'm certain will have the same issues. It may just about catch up with Flash from 5 years ago but it's not going anywhere new fast. The new stuff will again be left to companies who have tight control. That may be Flash or it may be something like Unity. It wont be HTML5. Who knows this truth better than anyone else? Apple, the king of control.
Perhaps you could explain how moving large amounts of equivalent data around in optimized bytecode is less efficient than also having to parse verbose XML and interpret ASCII JavaScript at runtime to get the same result.
As you know, the javascript engine and the html5 interpreter are compiled into the browser executable where as Flash is a plugin. That is the main bottle neck. Sort of like the difference between running php as a module vs compiling it into apache. Big performance hit using a plugin architecture.
It really isn't you know. There's no Special API to make Flash not suck. You think games and other visual software are sprinkled with some magical Apple pixie dust which everyone but Adobe has access to?
He is talking about the ability to use the GPU. Part of the reason Flash sucked was that Apple previously didn't allow access to the GPU so Flash had to do everything on the CPU. This has now changed but only for newer Macs.
See above. The site is about creativity and design as its main content is about a group of designers. It needs to stand out and be different which it achieves.
Flash fills a gap that html5 can't meet yet. Sure html5 is great for video, I have developed websites choosing that over flash already and will continue to, but it does not cater for anyone that is a web DESIGNER yet. You can't make animated content without getting down to low level code with html5, you can with flash. This will change when adobe brings out its html5 creative tools but until then FLASH FILLS A GAP IN THE MARKET whether you or saint jobs likes it or not.
That site is visually appealing and simple. The Flash isn't offensive and surprise, surprise, it isn't a CPU hog either. It doesn't exactly push the envelope in terms of interaction though (thank God) and could easily be done with HTML5. But honestly, does it really add much to the "branding?" I was just there and it made no impression on me as to what it was. The interactive text was practically illegible and sideways to boot (All I remember is that it was for something in London, presumably a fine arts event or a company involved in some creative endeavor. I lost interest before clicking through very much.)
I find this kind of site slightly annoying. The really awful ones I find intolerable. The content is not parse-able, searchable, or printable. What's the point other than to make the author think he's an artist? That is not branding.
Contrary to what you seem to think, Flash is a silly and inefficient choice for video, as well as most other applications it is used for.
The main use for Flash that makes any sense is for interactive visual presentations like you see in the New York Times, etc. or for a strictly artistic expression. I realize digital strategy consultants push it and company representatives crave the perceived "brand statement" and "rich user experience." But users find it an offensive annoyance. As a designer I see it as a naive excuse for real communication and value and a indicator that the enterprise and designing entity have no real ideas.
Exactly. That is where Flash really gets a bad rap. Amateur coders do really dumb things and Flash attracts them like flies. Well written code will run well on any platform.
I understand your confusion - Adobe hasn't helped by introducing these two names. For the purposes of an end user, they are the same thing. Both are AS3 at the core and, as the post above points out, the end point is the Flash stuff you see on the internet.
His solution is to run another browser, only when you absolutely need it, that has Flash built-in, not as a plugin, so that you can avoid using it almost all the time, and control when it's loaded, and kill it immediately when done with it.
The world would be a better place if Adobe just shut down all mac products. Steve Jobs struts around like he is the most important person in computing and one day its going to kick him up the backside. The fact of the matter is the latest version of flash works fine on my non mac computer and is awful on my mac. Something doesn't add up here and I think it's the fact that apple won't let adobe use the appropriate APIs to make it run properly on a mac
Ah then, clearly you are a troll.
Sorry I wasted my time and effort pointing out your blind spots before. Clearly you were already aware of them.
perhaps there should not be websites like that in first place. The UI is horrible for corridor. Just because you have the freedom to make vertical text links, does not mean you should, especially for a site that is to be viewed horizontally. What is on that site, that could not be reproduced with jpgs, dhtml, css, and javascript? absolutely nothing, but guaranteed that flash file size dwarfs the html version. And for no added benefits other than the laziness to not have to css hack/optimize for the all the main browsers.
This is something no one talks about, but i am going to say it....Flash also allows talentless/hobbyist designers to create absolute foul stools and place them on the web to ruin the experience of the web for the rest of us. Design is more than flashy/crappy graphics and animation, 'cause you can. Though i will agree there is no competing program that can do what Flash does somewhat seamlessly, Actionscripting/javascripting was not originally designed/optimized to animate the horrendously large, complicated, algorithm-ed, multi-layed SVGs that non-professionals have atrociously used it for.
A professional "rich web content" experience is also about the limitations of your medium and becoming a master of the process, which includes design limitations relative to screen size, content delivery, and processing capabilities. Very few "flash" designers have every achieved this. Optimization is crucial, even with todays broadband and wifi accessible world. There is no substitution for proper planning, which also includes who will be able to access this content/how/at which speed, the lowest common denominators. The majority of the market of the personal/professional computer users are windows users with one thing in mind, price..which means cheap, which means configurations never even thought or considered. Which means Flash from a professional content designer's perspective leaves too many unknowns how it will run. Trust me, I have professional used, taught, and tutored flash since the beginning, i would test the same project on every computer I could get my hands on, offline and online and the experience was similar but different each time. There is no telling how it will run from computer to computer. Animation lag, is the best you can hope for.
Since Adobe has purchased macromedia, it has tried to merge the capabilities of Director and try to merge it with Flash...that was a bad idea from the start. Even before the purchase, trying to encode video? Seriously? Leave that to big boys, to dedicated professional video applications. Adobe has never gotten it right in that department either. Now the bulk of flash-designed content is annoying ads and porn, most professional designers abandoned it for websites a long time ago.
There I said...and with all that said, I hope to see the millions of poorly designed/optimized flash sites to quietly disappear into the night, so I can surf without the worry that flash is going to gain access or crash my browser/system
... The only fair comparison that can be made at this time is that of HTML5 video to Flash video. HTML5 wins hands down in cpu usage. In my test with the exact same video with code that I wrote, HTML5 uses 19% compared to Flash 36%. Both of these numbers are quite satisfactory for rich media...
Actually, I think it would be a totally fair comparison to redesign a Flash site to use the HTML5 functionality available today and compare both the resources required to render/run it and the usability. Not only will the resources required be less, the site is likely to be far better in terms of delivering it's message and in usability than the Flash site.
To say that it's not Flash's fault that it only works by being a complete resource pig and that, if we design equally resource pig HTML5 sites, they will suck just as bad is really missing the point of what's wrong with Flash.
Quote:
... Flash is still the best way to display really fancy animations and interactive presentations. By the time the canvas tag and javascript are able to do what Flash can currently do, I'd be willing to bet it will use every bit as much battery and cpu as Flash does today.
And here's hoping they never get to that point, or if they do, design will have moved on to a more rational basis by then. Those fancy animations and interactive presentations that are Flash's hallmark are the number one reason why Flash sites are so useless.
So the obvious answer is that Apple should built Flash directly into Safari.
No, the obvious answer is that Flash should go quietly into oblivion so that we don't have to resort to such kludgy workarounds to keep our computers running properly.
Comments
some stores selling out of the phone sounds mysteriously like a spontaneous line dance.
LOVE IT!!
gain, it's not like I don't think we would have a better web if Flash wasn't abused like it is at the moment, but Lynch is actually not far off the truth with this comment. The review mentioned only really tested how much battery life advertising takes up.
This is correct.
The only fair comparison that can be made at this time is that of HTML5 video to Flash video. HTML5 wins hands down in cpu usage. In my test with the exact same video with code that I wrote, HTML5 uses 19% compared to Flash 36%. Both of these numbers are quite satisfactory for rich media.
If I was to write a Flash swf that did absolutely nothing, the Flash plugin only uses 5% in an idle state. Flash was never intended to be a video player, it just turned out to be the best way to display video a decade ago, but it was a kluge at first and later improved with Flash 8 from Macromedia. It has remained pretty much in the same state since.
Flash is still the best way to display really fancy animations and interactive presentations. By the time the canvas tag and javascript are able to do what Flash can currently do, I'd be willing to bet it will use every bit as much battery and cpu as Flash does today.
I'll field this.
Standards compliant css and javascript supports opacity, positioning, z-index, and image stretching and clipping. I don't see anything in that site that can't be done without flash. There are effects that only flash can do within reason (such as rotation and such), but that site doesn't have any of them.
It's a frustrating, CPU taxing, battery sucking fact that most people use flash because they're ignorant of other options. I'm still happily using a 2002 era titanium powerbook. You know why it's still snappy and usable? I disabled flash.
And yes, I do this stuff for a living.
When it comes to Flash vs. Apple, this site is like watching Fox News for political information.
Not even slightly true. The whole Flex API is open source. You can download it for free on Adobe's site and program with an open source environment like Eclipse. Frankly, I find it easier than Adobe's own options for creating Flash content.
Flash flourished in the past because Javascript was designed by a committee of squabbling rivals and was inconsistant for both the author and end-user. Javascript was simply not suitable for creating the media web we now know. Flash was.
HTML5 is also being designed by committee and I'm certain will have the same issues. It may just about catch up with Flash from 5 years ago but it's not going anywhere new fast. The new stuff will again be left to companies who have tight control. That may be Flash or it may be something like Unity. It wont be HTML5. Who knows this truth better than anyone else? Apple, the king of control.
Um. Steve's beef is with Flash, not with Flex.
Perhaps you could explain how moving large amounts of equivalent data around in optimized bytecode is less efficient than also having to parse verbose XML and interpret ASCII JavaScript at runtime to get the same result.
As you know, the javascript engine and the html5 interpreter are compiled into the browser executable where as Flash is a plugin. That is the main bottle neck. Sort of like the difference between running php as a module vs compiling it into apache. Big performance hit using a plugin architecture.
Um. Steve's beef is with Flash, not with Flex.
Sorry Flex uses the Flash plugin to display
It really isn't you know. There's no Special API to make Flash not suck. You think games and other visual software are sprinkled with some magical Apple pixie dust which everyone but Adobe has access to?
He is talking about the ability to use the GPU. Part of the reason Flash sucked was that Apple previously didn't allow access to the GPU so Flash had to do everything on the CPU. This has now changed but only for newer Macs.
See above. The site is about creativity and design as its main content is about a group of designers. It needs to stand out and be different which it achieves.
Flash fills a gap that html5 can't meet yet. Sure html5 is great for video, I have developed websites choosing that over flash already and will continue to, but it does not cater for anyone that is a web DESIGNER yet. You can't make animated content without getting down to low level code with html5, you can with flash. This will change when adobe brings out its html5 creative tools but until then FLASH FILLS A GAP IN THE MARKET whether you or saint jobs likes it or not.
That site is visually appealing and simple. The Flash isn't offensive and surprise, surprise, it isn't a CPU hog either. It doesn't exactly push the envelope in terms of interaction though (thank God) and could easily be done with HTML5. But honestly, does it really add much to the "branding?" I was just there and it made no impression on me as to what it was. The interactive text was practically illegible and sideways to boot (All I remember is that it was for something in London, presumably a fine arts event or a company involved in some creative endeavor. I lost interest before clicking through very much.)
I find this kind of site slightly annoying. The really awful ones I find intolerable. The content is not parse-able, searchable, or printable. What's the point other than to make the author think he's an artist? That is not branding.
Contrary to what you seem to think, Flash is a silly and inefficient choice for video, as well as most other applications it is used for.
The main use for Flash that makes any sense is for interactive visual presentations like you see in the New York Times, etc. or for a strictly artistic expression. I realize digital strategy consultants push it and company representatives crave the perceived "brand statement" and "rich user experience." But users find it an offensive annoyance. As a designer I see it as a naive excuse for real communication and value and a indicator that the enterprise and designing entity have no real ideas.
That's the engine. Now what about the code unique to a given site?
You may want to consider this:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...6&postcount=44
Exactly. That is where Flash really gets a bad rap. Amateur coders do really dumb things and Flash attracts them like flies. Well written code will run well on any platform.
Um. Steve's beef is with Flash, not with Flex.
I understand your confusion - Adobe hasn't helped by introducing these two names. For the purposes of an end user, they are the same thing. Both are AS3 at the core and, as the post above points out, the end point is the Flash stuff you see on the internet.
LOL - Gruber's answer is to run a second browser.
His solution is to run another browser, only when you absolutely need it, that has Flash built-in, not as a plugin, so that you can avoid using it almost all the time, and control when it's loaded, and kill it immediately when done with it.
The world would be a better place if Adobe just shut down all mac products. Steve Jobs struts around like he is the most important person in computing and one day its going to kick him up the backside. The fact of the matter is the latest version of flash works fine on my non mac computer and is awful on my mac. Something doesn't add up here and I think it's the fact that apple won't let adobe use the appropriate APIs to make it run properly on a mac
Ah then, clearly you are a troll.
Sorry I wasted my time and effort pointing out your blind spots before. Clearly you were already aware of them.
... Steve Jobs struts around like he is the most important person in computing ...
Well, actually, although I would disagree that he struts, right now, he is.
perhaps there should not be websites like that in first place. The UI is horrible for corridor. Just because you have the freedom to make vertical text links, does not mean you should, especially for a site that is to be viewed horizontally. What is on that site, that could not be reproduced with jpgs, dhtml, css, and javascript? absolutely nothing, but guaranteed that flash file size dwarfs the html version. And for no added benefits other than the laziness to not have to css hack/optimize for the all the main browsers.
This is something no one talks about, but i am going to say it....Flash also allows talentless/hobbyist designers to create absolute foul stools and place them on the web to ruin the experience of the web for the rest of us. Design is more than flashy/crappy graphics and animation, 'cause you can. Though i will agree there is no competing program that can do what Flash does somewhat seamlessly, Actionscripting/javascripting was not originally designed/optimized to animate the horrendously large, complicated, algorithm-ed, multi-layed SVGs that non-professionals have atrociously used it for.
A professional "rich web content" experience is also about the limitations of your medium and becoming a master of the process, which includes design limitations relative to screen size, content delivery, and processing capabilities. Very few "flash" designers have every achieved this. Optimization is crucial, even with todays broadband and wifi accessible world. There is no substitution for proper planning, which also includes who will be able to access this content/how/at which speed, the lowest common denominators. The majority of the market of the personal/professional computer users are windows users with one thing in mind, price..which means cheap, which means configurations never even thought or considered. Which means Flash from a professional content designer's perspective leaves too many unknowns how it will run. Trust me, I have professional used, taught, and tutored flash since the beginning, i would test the same project on every computer I could get my hands on, offline and online and the experience was similar but different each time. There is no telling how it will run from computer to computer. Animation lag, is the best you can hope for.
Since Adobe has purchased macromedia, it has tried to merge the capabilities of Director and try to merge it with Flash...that was a bad idea from the start. Even before the purchase, trying to encode video? Seriously? Leave that to big boys, to dedicated professional video applications. Adobe has never gotten it right in that department either. Now the bulk of flash-designed content is annoying ads and porn, most professional designers abandoned it for websites a long time ago.
There I said...and with all that said, I hope to see the millions of poorly designed/optimized flash sites to quietly disappear into the night, so I can surf without the worry that flash is going to gain access or crash my browser/system
Amen, Brother!
... The only fair comparison that can be made at this time is that of HTML5 video to Flash video. HTML5 wins hands down in cpu usage. In my test with the exact same video with code that I wrote, HTML5 uses 19% compared to Flash 36%. Both of these numbers are quite satisfactory for rich media...
Actually, I think it would be a totally fair comparison to redesign a Flash site to use the HTML5 functionality available today and compare both the resources required to render/run it and the usability. Not only will the resources required be less, the site is likely to be far better in terms of delivering it's message and in usability than the Flash site.
To say that it's not Flash's fault that it only works by being a complete resource pig and that, if we design equally resource pig HTML5 sites, they will suck just as bad is really missing the point of what's wrong with Flash.
... Flash is still the best way to display really fancy animations and interactive presentations. By the time the canvas tag and javascript are able to do what Flash can currently do, I'd be willing to bet it will use every bit as much battery and cpu as Flash does today.
And here's hoping they never get to that point, or if they do, design will have moved on to a more rational basis by then. Those fancy animations and interactive presentations that are Flash's hallmark are the number one reason why Flash sites are so useless.
So the obvious answer is that Apple should built Flash directly into Safari.
No, the obvious answer is that Flash should go quietly into oblivion so that we don't have to resort to such kludgy workarounds to keep our computers running properly.