According to your screenshot, Firefox is using 23% under Windows 7. That is a bit more than the 1-3% you quoted.
Right. I said that I had clicked a link in the website before I looked at the CPU utilization. When I went back, I checked it out on the homepage, and it said 23%. The 1-3% was not correct for the main page, but instead, the link.
According to your screenshot, Firefox is using 23% under Windows 7. That is a bit more than the 1-3% you quoted.
Just to put this into reference, I can run an entire Windows 7 OS on my Quad i7 in a virtual machine, and utilization is in the 3-5% range. I can open up that flash site, and it pushes my Quad i7 to 30% utilization.
I don't find that terribly surprising, given how few Mac users there are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
There are millions of Macs out there. Troll much? (sorry, that last bit was a redundant question).
I don't think this is trolling - its a legitimate point. There may be a lot of Macs out there, but there are a lot MORE windows machines out there. As well as Apple has done and as much market share as they have gained and as good as their products are, their market share is still small compared to windows.
Adobe has very little incentive to spend a lot of expensive resources on %10 or less of the market. Its good that they are addressing it and showing some incentive to improve performance etc. They could comfortably ignore it over the small number of complaints primarily coming from a small number of mac enthusiasts.
Stop stalling with HTML5. You're using the old Washington technique of embrace and strangle. You support HTML 5 in the same way that Microsoft joined the MPEG 4 working group -- stalling and stalling and then leaving the group just before they came out with their own MP4 codecs (they were "better") just before the standards were announced. Allow video to default to Flash in the standard, in the interests of compatibility. But you won't do that, because that would mean that Flash would get dumped in a year.
Remember, Flash was promoted by Microsoft years ago in their quest to destroy QuickTime. Macromedia optimized Flash for the PC because Microsoft was their biggest customer.
If my Mac crashes it's always when Flash is running. Coincidence? I think not!
I haven't ever seen the plugin install prompt on a Mac so I don't know. On Windows I think Flash can automatically install itself from the web page. Been a long time since I have looked at that feature.
Because every Mac comes with Flash pre-installed. Are you sure Flash player installs itself automatically without prompting users to an Adobe page and asking them to install it?
It doesn't seem to be the Mac hardware which is at fault: They use middle-of-the-road standard hardware on most Macs. It must be some other aspect of the Mac which causes the problem.
And Macs have nowhere near 15% of the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
I haven't checked the numbers lately, but Macs are probably still more than 15% of the market that Adobe sells software for, and definitely more if one excludes the PDF-based business productivity portion of Adobe's business.
In any case, it's material enough for Adobe to include Mac OS X sales in the risk section of their 10-K.
I think the argument is that Adobe's implementation of the Flash plugin for OSX is the problem - that its gotten bloated and inefficient. In this case, it shouldn't have anything to do with the hardware OR the OS, but Adobe's code is the problem.
Especially with Flash, Adobe has to consider the whole market, not just the content creation market, in which Mac may have a little more market share than it does in the whole market. In the market that can consume flash content, Mac has nowhere near 15%.
He neglected to tell you he's running Windows, which has Flash optimised to run on the GPU courtesy of Adobe.
It wasn't always that way if anyone was an early adopter of 64 bit Windows XP there were quite a few issues back then, preceding that 64 bit BeOS and Linux users were even worse off, the only way to get flash to work was to run your browser in 32 bit mode.
btw that Jim Carry site will not run on the Adobe Flash for smartphones as the content is created for Flash 9 and the smartphone version of Flash 10.1 won't support it (It has already been abandoned by the team working on Firefox for Maemo), the site will have to be rewritten using ActionScript 3 compatible Flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I think you're lying here.
I just tried it on all three browsers and I get over a hundred percent CPU usage on both Safari and Firefox. Chrome only registers 80 something percent, but it has two "helper apps" each using up about 20 or 30 percent of the CPU as well.
Flash sucks CPu cycles on a Mac. It's a fact, and it doesn't really matter what browser you use.
I don't think this is trolling - its a legitimate point. There may be a lot of Macs out there, but there are a lot MORE windows machines out there. As well as Apple has done and as much market share as they have gained and as good as their products are, their market share is still small compared to windows.
Adobe has very little incentive to spend a lot of expensive resources on %10 or less of the market. Its good that they are addressing it and showing some incentive to improve performance etc. They could comfortably ignore it over the small number of complaints primarily coming from a small number of mac enthusiasts.
Are you seriously going to state that millions of potential customers are insignificant to a business? Mac is probably one of Adobe's primary customers. They built their business on Apple machines.
You're also implying that these complaints come from a small number of 'enthusiasts' as you call them.
Let me show you about 6,000,000 people who would like to disagree with you.
If you want to bring Windows into it, here's 21,000,000 who have performance problems with Flash on a Windows PC's. The problem is not on Mac's alone. It is across the board on pretty much every major OS.
You purchased a Mac. Mac's cannot handle Flash well, and this is widely known. Yet, it is a pastime for Mac users, and those who are on these forums, to berate Adobe. So who's fault is it? Is it Adobe's, for not bending over backward to the whims of Jobs, his needy customers, and the obstructiveness of OS X? Or is it your fault, for making the decision to buy a product you knew full well does not support Flash- a rich media format used extensively throughout the web? I have to tell you, my non-Apple desktop at home has much the same specs as yours, and Flash just works (to quote a familiar tag line). Do not complain about it after the fact, as you're doing at the very end of your post.
And as of yet, Adobe still hasn't released a Mac suitable version of Flash. From a business perspective, which do you cater to first? The 80% of the market which uses PCs and has very little to no issues with Flash and whose hardware can handle it? Or do you cater to <15% of the market which uses Macs, a company that openly chastises your product, and whose products feature hardware that cannot adequately handle Flash? I wonder.
As you said, your post also speaks for itself.
Most people don't purchase Apple computers with viewing Flash content as a primary concern. In fact, if you read through the thread you would see just how many users on this forum willingly choose to disable Flash content unless no alternative is available.
Being familiar with Flash/Actionscript and software development in general, I feel quite comfortable saying two things (the latter of which it seems Adobe's CTO agrees with): the Flash RTE is easy to program for but is generally inefficient, and its problems on the Mac don't point to Apple hardware (one of the most ill-informed trolling comments I have ever read on these forums). The ease of programming makes it simple for developers to create aesthetically pleasing sites that usually also sacrifice usability in many cases. The inefficiency further burdens some end-users on many platforms by making the web experience frustratingly slow. This especially applies to most people with a netbook (yes, even those running Windows XP). That's one of the fastest growing market segments in a bad economy, but since they are only paying $300 or so for a computer are they not entitled to reasonable Flash performance either?
A Windows computer (to include Apple computers with Bootcamp in my experience, which should be proof enough to anyone that hardware is NOT the issue, friend) runs Flash Player generally better than a computer with OS X. This is entirely on Adobe. I don't care what excuses they make, their code base for the Mac platform must be appallingly bad. When other software companies can make more complex programs, many of which are media based as well, run better on the Mac than on Windows it definitely casts a shadow over the development abilities of the folks at Adobe.
Throwing out the entire code base and starting over is generally a bad idea when fixing software, but Adobe needs to do something. We are entering an era where computers are not scaling upward in clock frequency, but wider in processing cores. It seems that Adobe did not account for that when "nurturing" the environment they acquired from Macromedia. If Flash is going to survive it needs true multithreading support for developers and a virtual machine that runs more efficiently than the current incarnation.
I don't think this is trolling - its a legitimate point. There may be a lot of Macs out there, but there are a lot MORE windows machines out there. As well as Apple has done and as much market share as they have gained and as good as their products are, their market share is still small compared to windows.
Adobe has very little incentive to spend a lot of expensive resources on %10 or less of the market. Its good that they are addressing it and showing some incentive to improve performance etc. They could comfortably ignore it over the small number of complaints primarily coming from a small number of mac enthusiasts.
Yes, there are a lot MORE windows machines than Macs in the wild, but would you consider it a waste of resources when that 10% of the market makes up more than half of your revenue? By your logic, you would consider it a waste of resources even if only 1% of the market are Mac users but they make up of 99% of your revenue, wouldn't you?
I can't imagine doing some of the things in HTML5 that am currently doing in Flash.
Video is one thing, but interactive maps, etc., etc. I believe is a LONG time coming even if it does have ALL the capabilities of flash. And when is Microsoft going to have a browser that fully supports it? Version 9??
I've had to support a lot of flash actionscript ... if I could make an IDE that uses a couple of javascript frameworks and HTML and released it now as a Flash alternative ... it would make money (if it worked! ;-) )
What Adobe needs to do is to spend a lot of time/money and optimize and bug-proof their plugins on BOTH platforms as flash 10/Firefox on my windows box crashes more than my OSX box. I'd had to see all the bug reports in from Safari and Firefox where Flash is the culprit.
Optimize, Optimize, Optimize
( sung to the tune of Developers, Developers, Developers)
And ... are people that stupid to think that ads will disappear if they ban flash??? They got around the security of the popup window by using popup DIV's, they'll have even MORE fun creating HTML5 based ads and you won't be able to turn them off as easily as flash (clickflash, etc.).
And ... are people that stupid to think that ads will disappear if they ban flash??? They got around the security of the popup window by using popup DIV's, they'll have even MORE fun creating HTML5 based ads and you won't be able to turn them off as easily as flash (clickflash, etc.).
As often as not, when I click on a ClickToFlash container in Safari (or FlashBlock in Firefox), I find there is nothing there because Adblock Plus, etc. has already filtered it out.
Want a screen shot? Lemme fire up that jim carrey site....
I couldn't figure out how to embed the .gif. Is there any way to do it?
You're right that 1-3% was too low. I looked after I had clicked a link on the site, which seemingly uses less CPU than the home page. When I did it again, the CPU was at 23%.
If you care, tell me how to embed the pic. If that is not possible, and if you really want to see it, I'll throw it onto the 'web.
Well I already did my own tests as I said so I'm not sure anything you post would be helpful. Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said I believed you, your result would be one single solitary data point, in a field of data points all indicating the exact reverse of your assertion. Anyone can look this stuff up and various tests that have been performed to confirm it.
Flash sucks up CPU cycles on the Mac to the point of ridiculousness (usually over 100% on a muti-cpu machine). It's just a fact. it has nothing to do with the browser, and nothing to do with the architecture or design of the OS. Flash is crap software. It's Adobe's fault for programming it that way.
These are all unassailable, proven points. Do some research and that's what you will find. I'm not going to go around the web looking for proof for you.
PS - to those saying that CSS can't replace Flash anytime soon, it easily could if someone would make a WYSIWYG tool for it.
If Adobe was smart, if they really *did* care about "open-ness" and if they wanted to keep their users happy, they would simply make an animation tool that exported CSS either instead of, or as well as, Flash files.
It's not that hard. Someone will do it soon now, it might as well be them.
Until you come up with a method for downrating trolls these forums will continue to lose knowledgeable people who contribute useful information and instead become a ghetto of attention whores. Simply blocking an undesirable user is not enough because the thread will become fractured and newcomers will perpetuate the replies.
Give this some serious thought because these user discussions are in danger of becoming completely useless.
The only way Adobe can make Flash better is to stop redistributing that crap Windows 95/98 port and rewrite Flash Player completely from scratch using the Core frameworks that way they will gain access to hardware decoding of H.264.
They currently don't have the access because they are trying to do things their own way... in other words rehashing a 10 year old product.
That would tell you if the culprit is Safari or not.
I'd be willing to guess that Flash is simply not optimized for OSX. Evidence? Adobe flat out refused to use xcode for how long, and are now complaining that GCC to Intel Mac takes some trivial amount longer to compile than Intel Win. Developing for Mac universal without using xcode is death on a stick, comparatively.
Curious to know exactly what about Safari is "going out of its way to hamper Flash."
That would be a very strange design criteria for a browser whose main selling point was speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85
You're correct, I should have said software in my second point. As I semi touched upon in my first point, there is no doubt, in my opinion, that OS X goes out of its way to hamper Flash. If Flash can run fine on Windows and PC hardware, there's no reason why it shouldn't run fine on OS X and Mac hardware. As hardware between the platforms is mostly similar, the answer has to lie within OS X or at the very least Safari, although I admit I am not knowledge about the inter working of Safari.
As for 15% market share, I was simply being generous
If there was a software that produced HTML5 multimedia with an ease of use rivalling Flash I'd definitely take a look. Apple should go for it. Perhaps SproutCore is the foundation of a forthcoming product?
I was once a Flash user but I never liked it. If there is ONE point that makes me turn away from Flash it's the buggy user interface. If I was Adobe I would be embarrassed.
Missing Apple software:
- Advanced QuickTime content authoring (QT isn't just playing movies, right?)
- Simple Quartz Composer - and a strategy for using QC objects anywhere on the Mac. Keynote, QuickTime Authoring, iChat etc.
- Apple Photoshop (they've been picking on Adobe for a long time haven't they?)
Comments
According to your screenshot, Firefox is using 23% under Windows 7. That is a bit more than the 1-3% you quoted.
Right. I said that I had clicked a link in the website before I looked at the CPU utilization. When I went back, I checked it out on the homepage, and it said 23%. The 1-3% was not correct for the main page, but instead, the link.
Thanks. Here you go:
http://yfrog.com/3132893441p
According to your screenshot, Firefox is using 23% under Windows 7. That is a bit more than the 1-3% you quoted.
Just to put this into reference, I can run an entire Windows 7 OS on my Quad i7 in a virtual machine, and utilization is in the 3-5% range. I can open up that flash site, and it pushes my Quad i7 to 30% utilization.
It is beyond busted.
I don't find that terribly surprising, given how few Mac users there are.
There are millions of Macs out there. Troll much? (sorry, that last bit was a redundant question).
I don't think this is trolling - its a legitimate point. There may be a lot of Macs out there, but there are a lot MORE windows machines out there. As well as Apple has done and as much market share as they have gained and as good as their products are, their market share is still small compared to windows.
Adobe has very little incentive to spend a lot of expensive resources on %10 or less of the market. Its good that they are addressing it and showing some incentive to improve performance etc. They could comfortably ignore it over the small number of complaints primarily coming from a small number of mac enthusiasts.
If my Mac crashes it's always when Flash is running. Coincidence? I think not!
I haven't ever seen the plugin install prompt on a Mac so I don't know. On Windows I think Flash can automatically install itself from the web page. Been a long time since I have looked at that feature.
Because every Mac comes with Flash pre-installed. Are you sure Flash player installs itself automatically without prompting users to an Adobe page and asking them to install it?
Couple of points:
It doesn't seem to be the Mac hardware which is at fault: They use middle-of-the-road standard hardware on most Macs. It must be some other aspect of the Mac which causes the problem.
And Macs have nowhere near 15% of the market.
I haven't checked the numbers lately, but Macs are probably still more than 15% of the market that Adobe sells software for, and definitely more if one excludes the PDF-based business productivity portion of Adobe's business.
In any case, it's material enough for Adobe to include Mac OS X sales in the risk section of their 10-K.
I think the argument is that Adobe's implementation of the Flash plugin for OSX is the problem - that its gotten bloated and inefficient. In this case, it shouldn't have anything to do with the hardware OR the OS, but Adobe's code is the problem.
Especially with Flash, Adobe has to consider the whole market, not just the content creation market, in which Mac may have a little more market share than it does in the whole market. In the market that can consume flash content, Mac has nowhere near 15%.
It wasn't always that way if anyone was an early adopter of 64 bit Windows XP there were quite a few issues back then, preceding that 64 bit BeOS and Linux users were even worse off, the only way to get flash to work was to run your browser in 32 bit mode.
btw that Jim Carry site will not run on the Adobe Flash for smartphones as the content is created for Flash 9 and the smartphone version of Flash 10.1 won't support it (It has already been abandoned by the team working on Firefox for Maemo), the site will have to be rewritten using ActionScript 3 compatible Flash.
I think you're lying here.
I just tried it on all three browsers and I get over a hundred percent CPU usage on both Safari and Firefox. Chrome only registers 80 something percent, but it has two "helper apps" each using up about 20 or 30 percent of the CPU as well.
Flash sucks CPu cycles on a Mac. It's a fact, and it doesn't really matter what browser you use.
I don't think this is trolling - its a legitimate point. There may be a lot of Macs out there, but there are a lot MORE windows machines out there. As well as Apple has done and as much market share as they have gained and as good as their products are, their market share is still small compared to windows.
Adobe has very little incentive to spend a lot of expensive resources on %10 or less of the market. Its good that they are addressing it and showing some incentive to improve performance etc. They could comfortably ignore it over the small number of complaints primarily coming from a small number of mac enthusiasts.
Are you seriously going to state that millions of potential customers are insignificant to a business? Mac is probably one of Adobe's primary customers. They built their business on Apple machines.
You're also implying that these complaints come from a small number of 'enthusiasts' as you call them.
Let me show you about 6,000,000 people who would like to disagree with you.
If you want to bring Windows into it, here's 21,000,000 who have performance problems with Flash on a Windows PC's. The problem is not on Mac's alone. It is across the board on pretty much every major OS.
You purchased a Mac. Mac's cannot handle Flash well, and this is widely known. Yet, it is a pastime for Mac users, and those who are on these forums, to berate Adobe. So who's fault is it? Is it Adobe's, for not bending over backward to the whims of Jobs, his needy customers, and the obstructiveness of OS X? Or is it your fault, for making the decision to buy a product you knew full well does not support Flash- a rich media format used extensively throughout the web? I have to tell you, my non-Apple desktop at home has much the same specs as yours, and Flash just works (to quote a familiar tag line). Do not complain about it after the fact, as you're doing at the very end of your post.
And as of yet, Adobe still hasn't released a Mac suitable version of Flash. From a business perspective, which do you cater to first? The 80% of the market which uses PCs and has very little to no issues with Flash and whose hardware can handle it? Or do you cater to <15% of the market which uses Macs, a company that openly chastises your product, and whose products feature hardware that cannot adequately handle Flash? I wonder.
As you said, your post also speaks for itself.
Most people don't purchase Apple computers with viewing Flash content as a primary concern. In fact, if you read through the thread you would see just how many users on this forum willingly choose to disable Flash content unless no alternative is available.
Being familiar with Flash/Actionscript and software development in general, I feel quite comfortable saying two things (the latter of which it seems Adobe's CTO agrees with): the Flash RTE is easy to program for but is generally inefficient, and its problems on the Mac don't point to Apple hardware (one of the most ill-informed trolling comments I have ever read on these forums). The ease of programming makes it simple for developers to create aesthetically pleasing sites that usually also sacrifice usability in many cases. The inefficiency further burdens some end-users on many platforms by making the web experience frustratingly slow. This especially applies to most people with a netbook (yes, even those running Windows XP). That's one of the fastest growing market segments in a bad economy, but since they are only paying $300 or so for a computer are they not entitled to reasonable Flash performance either?
A Windows computer (to include Apple computers with Bootcamp in my experience, which should be proof enough to anyone that hardware is NOT the issue, friend) runs Flash Player generally better than a computer with OS X. This is entirely on Adobe. I don't care what excuses they make, their code base for the Mac platform must be appallingly bad. When other software companies can make more complex programs, many of which are media based as well, run better on the Mac than on Windows it definitely casts a shadow over the development abilities of the folks at Adobe.
Throwing out the entire code base and starting over is generally a bad idea when fixing software, but Adobe needs to do something. We are entering an era where computers are not scaling upward in clock frequency, but wider in processing cores. It seems that Adobe did not account for that when "nurturing" the environment they acquired from Macromedia. If Flash is going to survive it needs true multithreading support for developers and a virtual machine that runs more efficiently than the current incarnation.
I don't think this is trolling - its a legitimate point. There may be a lot of Macs out there, but there are a lot MORE windows machines out there. As well as Apple has done and as much market share as they have gained and as good as their products are, their market share is still small compared to windows.
Adobe has very little incentive to spend a lot of expensive resources on %10 or less of the market. Its good that they are addressing it and showing some incentive to improve performance etc. They could comfortably ignore it over the small number of complaints primarily coming from a small number of mac enthusiasts.
Yes, there are a lot MORE windows machines than Macs in the wild, but would you consider it a waste of resources when that 10% of the market makes up more than half of your revenue? By your logic, you would consider it a waste of resources even if only 1% of the market are Mac users but they make up of 99% of your revenue, wouldn't you?
Quit whining. There's a whole world of software that is not optimised for the Mac. You knew that when you chose an unpopular platform.
That viewpoint sounds insane to me.
You use that quote and say quit whining? Quit being a typical internet jerk. That guy's not whining.
Video is one thing, but interactive maps, etc., etc. I believe is a LONG time coming even if it does have ALL the capabilities of flash. And when is Microsoft going to have a browser that fully supports it? Version 9??
I've had to support a lot of flash actionscript ... if I could make an IDE that uses a couple of javascript frameworks and HTML and released it now as a Flash alternative ... it would make money (if it worked! ;-) )
What Adobe needs to do is to spend a lot of time/money and optimize and bug-proof their plugins on BOTH platforms as flash 10/Firefox on my windows box crashes more than my OSX box. I'd had to see all the bug reports in from Safari and Firefox where Flash is the culprit.
Optimize, Optimize, Optimize
( sung to the tune of Developers, Developers, Developers)
And ... are people that stupid to think that ads will disappear if they ban flash??? They got around the security of the popup window by using popup DIV's, they'll have even MORE fun creating HTML5 based ads and you won't be able to turn them off as easily as flash (clickflash, etc.).
And ... are people that stupid to think that ads will disappear if they ban flash??? They got around the security of the popup window by using popup DIV's, they'll have even MORE fun creating HTML5 based ads and you won't be able to turn them off as easily as flash (clickflash, etc.).
As often as not, when I click on a ClickToFlash container in Safari (or FlashBlock in Firefox), I find there is nothing there because Adblock Plus, etc. has already filtered it out.
Want a screen shot? Lemme fire up that jim carrey site....
I couldn't figure out how to embed the .gif. Is there any way to do it?
You're right that 1-3% was too low. I looked after I had clicked a link on the site, which seemingly uses less CPU than the home page. When I did it again, the CPU was at 23%.
If you care, tell me how to embed the pic. If that is not possible, and if you really want to see it, I'll throw it onto the 'web.
Well I already did my own tests as I said so I'm not sure anything you post would be helpful. Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said I believed you, your result would be one single solitary data point, in a field of data points all indicating the exact reverse of your assertion. Anyone can look this stuff up and various tests that have been performed to confirm it.
Flash sucks up CPU cycles on the Mac to the point of ridiculousness (usually over 100% on a muti-cpu machine). It's just a fact. it has nothing to do with the browser, and nothing to do with the architecture or design of the OS. Flash is crap software. It's Adobe's fault for programming it that way.
These are all unassailable, proven points. Do some research and that's what you will find. I'm not going to go around the web looking for proof for you.
PS - to those saying that CSS can't replace Flash anytime soon, it easily could if someone would make a WYSIWYG tool for it.
If Adobe was smart, if they really *did* care about "open-ness" and if they wanted to keep their users happy, they would simply make an animation tool that exported CSS either instead of, or as well as, Flash files.
It's not that hard. Someone will do it soon now, it might as well be them.
Dear AppleInsider,
Until you come up with a method for downrating trolls these forums will continue to lose knowledgeable people who contribute useful information and instead become a ghetto of attention whores. Simply blocking an undesirable user is not enough because the thread will become fractured and newcomers will perpetuate the replies.
Give this some serious thought because these user discussions are in danger of becoming completely useless.
+1
These forums have become a cesspool.
They currently don't have the access because they are trying to do things their own way... in other words rehashing a 10 year old product.
That's why Adobe is lazy.
That would tell you if the culprit is Safari or not.
I'd be willing to guess that Flash is simply not optimized for OSX. Evidence? Adobe flat out refused to use xcode for how long, and are now complaining that GCC to Intel Mac takes some trivial amount longer to compile than Intel Win. Developing for Mac universal without using xcode is death on a stick, comparatively.
Curious to know exactly what about Safari is "going out of its way to hamper Flash."
That would be a very strange design criteria for a browser whose main selling point was speed.
You're correct, I should have said software in my second point. As I semi touched upon in my first point, there is no doubt, in my opinion, that OS X goes out of its way to hamper Flash. If Flash can run fine on Windows and PC hardware, there's no reason why it shouldn't run fine on OS X and Mac hardware. As hardware between the platforms is mostly similar, the answer has to lie within OS X or at the very least Safari, although I admit I am not knowledge about the inter working of Safari.
As for 15% market share, I was simply being generous
I was once a Flash user but I never liked it. If there is ONE point that makes me turn away from Flash it's the buggy user interface. If I was Adobe I would be embarrassed.
Missing Apple software:
- Advanced QuickTime content authoring (QT isn't just playing movies, right?)
- Simple Quartz Composer - and a strategy for using QC objects anywhere on the Mac. Keynote, QuickTime Authoring, iChat etc.
- Apple Photoshop (they've been picking on Adobe for a long time haven't they?)
- HTML5 multimedia authoring