And why not? If Steve Jobs wants to force people to go beyond Adobe Flash, he should force real Mac users to stop using Flash altogether by banning Flash from MacOS X 10.5.x and 10.6.x versions. Let's see how fast that hurts Mac sales until the rest of the Internet evolves to HTML 5.0 4-5 years from now.
Come on, seriously? So Jobs would spend a bunch of engineering hours to prevent a specific plug-in from being loaded on all browser on the Mac? It's not like the iPod or iPhone where Apple controls what software get onto the device. Maybe he could just disable Flash on Safari and see how popular that would turn out. And there is always Parallels where we can still run Windows.
Jobs is the largest on the board of Disney and their website has a bunch of Flash videos. So does Disney owned ESPN and ABC. Without being a Flash lover or hater, there is just a lot of Flash video out there.
I am absolutely serious. Jobs dislikes Flash because 1) he's right that current versions of Flash use too much CPU cycles under MacOS X 10.5.x/10.6.x and 2) Apple--along with Google--has a MAJOR vested interest (both financial and technological) in making HTML 5.0 succeed. As such, if Jobs really wants to get everyone off Adobe Flash, what better way than essentially making Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook and MacBook Pro users use only HTML 5.0 technologies? Such a move will make WAY more of a statement that the web site designers and managers should evolve to HTML 5.0 technologies.
I see what you're saying, but that isn't a message to send. Macs can handle Flash, albeit much more poorly than HTML5 video tag for the same function. Flash wasn't designed for mobiles and Adobe dropped on the ball on development so it makes absolute sense not to include it there, but that doesn't mean Flash can't run on the desktop and doesn't have uses on the desktop. Let's not forget that the way Flash interacts with the user is by and large designed for a mouse and keyboard, not a finger-based touchscreen which makes most of the Flash world inaccessible for even Windows tablets.
Like many on this forum, I have Flash installed with ClickToFlash installed to control it. Not installing Flash on Macs would mean another thing to install on a new Mac. I listened to BBC Radio 1 all morning with Flash. It was taking 100%/200% across two-core for several hours for 48Kbps HE-AAC audio but that is that. If I were using just the battery Id get 1hr:37min out of a brand new 4400mAh battery. Not good!
edit: I just found an unofficial Dashboard Wdiget for BBC Radio. Reduced my load to 5%. Awesome!
I am absolutely serious. Jobs dislikes Flash because 1) he's right that current versions of Flash use too much CPU cycles under MacOS X 10.5.x/10.6.x and 2) Apple--along with Google--has a MAJOR vested interest (both financial and technological) in making HTML 5.0 succeed. As such, if Jobs really wants to get everyone off Adobe Flash, what better way than essentially making Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook and MacBook Pro users use only HTML 5.0 technologies? Such a move will make WAY more of a statement that the web site designers and managers should evolve to HTML 5.0 technologies.
He doesn't dislike it as much as you think. His beloved Disney owned websites (Disney, ABC, ESPN) has lots of Flash video. It is just a rally cry to get people to buy from his iTunes store.
He doesn't dislike it as much as you think. His beloved Disney owned websites (Disney, ABC, ESPN) has lots of Flash video. It is just a rally cry to get people to buy from his iTunes store.
If that were true then they wouldn't have added HTML5 video tags to Safari, created HTTP Live Streaming and offered it for free to facilitate free video streaming from sites like Hulu.
You are running beta code and moaning about the performance of it? Maybe you should go back to the product version, those sites, while they increased the processor levels, did not make my 2.16GHz iMac go into "cardiac arrest"
I remember not to long ago computers were running with single core CPUs at 800Mhz or something, and 512MB of ram. In fact, my parents still have one: a 2002 iMac. They could surf the web just fine, back then, but today it's often a struggle. No YouTube, that's for sure. And not because the computer has any hardware issues either. I find it amusing how something as simple as viewing a document or video on the web nowadays practically requires dual core 2.16Ghz and 2Gb of ram. We sure are using that extra computing power efficiently, aren't we?? And what of the increased energy required to run a 2.16Ghz processor? Battery life = s**t compared to the possibilities with 800Mhz.
Personally, I think most flash pages look like s**t, artistically, with an equal value in functionality.
HTML 5 is open source, you can write the tags in a text editor if you want, it will run in any browser, even IE with the Google Frame plug in.
Firefox and Opera take it even further by using open source codecs for video and sound rather than the proprietary (and free to use) H.264 and MP3 codecs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoMan01
I am absolutely serious. Jobs dislikes Flash because 1) he's right that current versions of Flash use too much CPU cycles under MacOS X 10.5.x/10.6.x and 2) Apple--along with Google--has a MAJOR vested interest (both financial and technological) in making HTML 5.0 succeed. As such, if Jobs really wants to get everyone off Adobe Flash, what better way than essentially making Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook and MacBook Pro users use only HTML 5.0 technologies? Such a move will make WAY more of a statement that the web site designers and managers should evolve to HTML 5.0 technologies.
Being even more daring and announce that MacOS X 10.5.x and 10.6.x will no longer support Flash. If there is ANYTHING that will get Adobe's attention, dropping Flash support in MacOS X will finally show we can go beyond Flash on a desktop/laptop operating system using the supposedly open HTML 5.0.
That's going to be the next shot in the flash/html5 conflict. Not disable flash completely but build in ClickToFlash as a Safari option and default it to on. It's a dramatic improvement in the browsing experience with no loss of functionality.
Firefox and IE8 may add it by default as well. That's already a very popular Firefox add-on so it's not a big stretch to imagine it part of the stock installation. And Microsoft wants to push Silverlight.
The use of flash is driven by advertising dollars. Already virtually all the mobile ad space can't use flash. Safari with ClickToFlash knocks off another 10% of the ad market for flash, Firefox another 30%. If my ads can't be seen by most mobile users and 40+% of the desktop users, ad designers will switch to something else very quickly. Once the ad designers are gone, flash becomes just a specialty plugin for certain kinds of interactive web sites.
That's going to be the next shot in the flash/html5 conflict. Not disable flash completely but build in ClickToFlash as a Safari option and default it to on. It's a dramatic improvement in the browsing experience with no loss of functionality.
Firefox and IE8 may add it by default as well. That's already a very popular Firefox add-on so it's not a big stretch to imagine it part of the stock installation. And Microsoft wants to push Silverlight.
The use of flash is driven by advertising dollars. Already virtually all the mobile ad space can't use flash. Safari with ClickToFlash knocks off another 10% of the ad market for flash, Firefox another 30%. If my ads can't be seen by most mobile users and 40+% of the desktop users, ad designers will switch to something else very quickly. Once the ad designers are gone, flash becomes just a specialty plugin for certain kinds of interactive web sites.
Interesting points and welcome to the forum. I agree that ads will have to switch from being Flash to webcode, but I have my doubts about ClickToFlash or its equivalent will be added to Safari, though I hope you are correct. Would there not be any anti-trust ramifications if Apple, Google, MS and Mozilla started offering that as part of the browser?
Flash was designed with the intention that computers would get faster, not slower.
Apple and netbook makers are producing what people want, and they want cheap web/email/word processing type computers and devices instead of large bulky, powerful, power hungry portable devices like laptops.
Unfortunately it's hard to reverse course once you make a standard like Flash.
It all has to do with games, higher quality 3D games mostly, going to consoles mostly instead of computers. Means most people don't need a powerful computer anymore.
Anything that needs a lot of performance can be either done on a desktop machine or "cloud computing" from a smaller portable device if need be.
All has to with the thermal wall being reached in processor performance.
So Flash needs a rewrite to run on smaller processor devices and touchscreens, like the iPad.
In fact a lot of websites will have to be updated to have the iPad version of Flash content so it can be interacted with correctly.
Just to let everyone know, someone made Photoshop 1.0 run on a iPhone...
So it's possible, it's just going to take time. No use crying, the iPad was just announced it's no wonder Flash isn't allowed on the device.
Interesting points and welcome to the forum. I agree that ads will have to switch from being Flash to webcode, but I have my doubts about ClickToFlash or its equivalent will be added to Safari, though I hope you are correct. Would there not be any anti-trust ramifications if Apple, Google, MS and Mozilla started offering that as part of the browser?
Early browsers had the option to load images automatically or only when user requested. There are preferences for enabling java or javascript or pop-up windows. Enabling flash by default or by user request seems exactly the same kind of user control option. So, no, I don't think there are any anti-trust issues.
Why would Apple not add ClickToFlash type functionality to Safari? What would be the downside for them?
And when was the last time you bought a device with a firewire 400 connections which didn't also offer USB-2 or firewire 800?
And what exactly do you slide into that express card slot, can only speak from UK experience, but every wireless provider in the UK offers their services via a USB dongle...
My Intel iMac has no firewire 800 connection. Probably didn't exist yet. My wife had the misfortune of pulling the trigger on a new MacBook pro when Apple decided the world didn't need firewire 400 anymore.
I guess the next product I buy wont have firewire or USB or express card or a DVD drive or flash or a matte screen. It will be called an iPad, a revolutionary device that will change the world and put Apple's stock over 300.
And why not? If Steve Jobs wants to force people to go beyond Adobe Flash, he should force real Mac users to stop using Flash altogether by banning Flash from MacOS X 10.5.x and 10.6.x versions.
Why not just go to http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/141/tn_14157.html and uninstall flash on your computer. There - now you no longer have to deal with it without deciding for the rest of the Mac world what they should / should not have on their computers.
Why not just go to http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/141/tn_14157.html and uninstall flash on your computer. There - now you no longer have to deal with it without deciding for the rest of the Mac world what they should / should not have on their computers.
Yes but unfortunately doing that yields a compromised computer much like the Chinese stripped of Google.
Where I do not understand you though is why this is justification for either outlawing flash (which is what the effect would be if HTML 5 were made the industry standard) or why Adobe should voluntary give up a revenue stream to make Mac users happy.
Are you suggesting that HTML 5 should not be approved as an open standard because it would harm Adobe if there was an alternative to Flash?
If the standard is finalized, approved and subsequently takes hold no one owes Adobe anything. There would be nothing to keep them from creating a suite of awesome tools to design for the web using open standards. They would need to either adapt or move on.
This whole topic could have been avoided if SJ and Apple had given us a mini Mac notebook instead of another iTunes handheld device -this time just larger.
Early browsers had the option to load images automatically or only when user requested. There are preferences for enabling java or javascript or pop-up windows. Enabling flash by default or by user request seems exactly the same kind of user control option. So, no, I don't think there are any anti-trust issues.
Why would Apple not add ClickToFlash type functionality to Safari? What would be the downside for them?
I'm not so sure. First of all, all those items came well before Safari was developed. Secondly, Jobs and Apple have already talked about how Flash in disparaging ways and are trying to promote good, free alternatives. They might not win but I can certainly see this being an issue of Apple illegally using it's position to hurt Flash while promoting options it has a vested interest it.
Apple's rebuttal could be that they do still ship makes with Flash installed and that the reason for the images, java, and JS on/off options are for bandwidth and/or security. Apple could also argue that the Plug-ins on/off option doesn't allow Flash to be used at all if that is turned off and that a comprehensive option would allow the best of both world for users and Adobe.
It would be great if it happens but I see some pitfalls for the first to offer it. The best way to make it natural is for the lesser browsers to include support first making it an copycat option for more popular browsers.
I see what you're saying, but that isn't a message to send. Macs can handle Flash, albeit much more poorly than HTML5 video tag for the same function. Flash wasn't designed for mobiles and Adobe dropped on the ball on development so it makes absolute sense not to include it there, but that doesn't mean Flash can't run on the desktop and doesn't have uses on the desktop. Let's not forget that the way Flash interacts with the user is by and large designed for a mouse and keyboard, not a finger-based touchscreen which makes most of the Flash world inaccessible for even Windows tablets.
Like many on this forum, I have Flash installed with ClickToFlash installed to control it. Not installing Flash on Macs would mean another thing to install on a new Mac. I listened to BBC Radio 1 all morning with Flash. It was taking 100%/200% across two-core for several hours for 48Kbps HE-AAC audio but that is that. If I were using just the battery Id get 1hr:37min out of a brand new 4400mAh battery. Not good!
edit: I just found an unofficial Dashboard Wdiget for BBC Radio. Reduced my load to 5%. Awesome!
Are you suggesting that HTML 5 should not be approved as an open standard because it would harm Adobe if there was an alternative to Flash?
If the standard is finalized, approved and subsequently takes hold no one owes Adobe anything. There would be nothing to keep them from creating a suite of awesome tools to design for the web using open standards. They would need to either adapt or move on.
It's not as if Adobe doesn't have the talent for SVG/OpenVG and rich multimedia development to produce the tools of choice.
Comments
And why not? If Steve Jobs wants to force people to go beyond Adobe Flash, he should force real Mac users to stop using Flash altogether by banning Flash from MacOS X 10.5.x and 10.6.x versions. Let's see how fast that hurts Mac sales until the rest of the Internet evolves to HTML 5.0 4-5 years from now.
Come on, seriously? So Jobs would spend a bunch of engineering hours to prevent a specific plug-in from being loaded on all browser on the Mac? It's not like the iPod or iPhone where Apple controls what software get onto the device. Maybe he could just disable Flash on Safari and see how popular that would turn out. And there is always Parallels where we can still run Windows.
Jobs is the largest on the board of Disney and their website has a bunch of Flash videos. So does Disney owned ESPN and ABC. Without being a Flash lover or hater, there is just a lot of Flash video out there.
I am absolutely serious. Jobs dislikes Flash because 1) he's right that current versions of Flash use too much CPU cycles under MacOS X 10.5.x/10.6.x and 2) Apple--along with Google--has a MAJOR vested interest (both financial and technological) in making HTML 5.0 succeed. As such, if Jobs really wants to get everyone off Adobe Flash, what better way than essentially making Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook and MacBook Pro users use only HTML 5.0 technologies? Such a move will make WAY more of a statement that the web site designers and managers should evolve to HTML 5.0 technologies.
I see what you're saying, but that isn't a message to send. Macs can handle Flash, albeit much more poorly than HTML5 video tag for the same function. Flash wasn't designed for mobiles and Adobe dropped on the ball on development so it makes absolute sense not to include it there, but that doesn't mean Flash can't run on the desktop and doesn't have uses on the desktop. Let's not forget that the way Flash interacts with the user is by and large designed for a mouse and keyboard, not a finger-based touchscreen which makes most of the Flash world inaccessible for even Windows tablets.
Like many on this forum, I have Flash installed with ClickToFlash installed to control it. Not installing Flash on Macs would mean another thing to install on a new Mac. I listened to BBC Radio 1 all morning with Flash. It was taking 100%/200% across two-core for several hours for 48Kbps HE-AAC audio but that is that. If I were using just the battery Id get 1hr:37min out of a brand new 4400mAh battery. Not good!edit: I just found an unofficial Dashboard Wdiget for BBC Radio. Reduced my load to 5%. Awesome!
I am absolutely serious. Jobs dislikes Flash because 1) he's right that current versions of Flash use too much CPU cycles under MacOS X 10.5.x/10.6.x and 2) Apple--along with Google--has a MAJOR vested interest (both financial and technological) in making HTML 5.0 succeed. As such, if Jobs really wants to get everyone off Adobe Flash, what better way than essentially making Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook and MacBook Pro users use only HTML 5.0 technologies? Such a move will make WAY more of a statement that the web site designers and managers should evolve to HTML 5.0 technologies.
He doesn't dislike it as much as you think. His beloved Disney owned websites (Disney, ABC, ESPN) has lots of Flash video. It is just a rally cry to get people to buy from his iTunes store.
He doesn't dislike it as much as you think. His beloved Disney owned websites (Disney, ABC, ESPN) has lots of Flash video. It is just a rally cry to get people to buy from his iTunes store.
If that were true then they wouldn't have added HTML5 video tags to Safari, created HTTP Live Streaming and offered it for free to facilitate free video streaming from sites like Hulu.
You are running beta code and moaning about the performance of it? Maybe you should go back to the product version, those sites, while they increased the processor levels, did not make my 2.16GHz iMac go into "cardiac arrest"
I remember not to long ago computers were running with single core CPUs at 800Mhz or something, and 512MB of ram. In fact, my parents still have one: a 2002 iMac. They could surf the web just fine, back then, but today it's often a struggle. No YouTube, that's for sure. And not because the computer has any hardware issues either. I find it amusing how something as simple as viewing a document or video on the web nowadays practically requires dual core 2.16Ghz and 2Gb of ram. We sure are using that extra computing power efficiently, aren't we?? And what of the increased energy required to run a 2.16Ghz processor? Battery life = s**t compared to the possibilities with 800Mhz.
Personally, I think most flash pages look like s**t, artistically, with an equal value in functionality.
HTML 5 is open source, you can write the tags in a text editor if you want, it will run in any browser, even IE with the Google Frame plug in.
Firefox and Opera take it even further by using open source codecs for video and sound rather than the proprietary (and free to use) H.264 and MP3 codecs.
I am absolutely serious. Jobs dislikes Flash because 1) he's right that current versions of Flash use too much CPU cycles under MacOS X 10.5.x/10.6.x and 2) Apple--along with Google--has a MAJOR vested interest (both financial and technological) in making HTML 5.0 succeed. As such, if Jobs really wants to get everyone off Adobe Flash, what better way than essentially making Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook and MacBook Pro users use only HTML 5.0 technologies? Such a move will make WAY more of a statement that the web site designers and managers should evolve to HTML 5.0 technologies.
Being even more daring and announce that MacOS X 10.5.x and 10.6.x will no longer support Flash. If there is ANYTHING that will get Adobe's attention, dropping Flash support in MacOS X will finally show we can go beyond Flash on a desktop/laptop operating system using the supposedly open HTML 5.0.
That's going to be the next shot in the flash/html5 conflict. Not disable flash completely but build in ClickToFlash as a Safari option and default it to on. It's a dramatic improvement in the browsing experience with no loss of functionality.
Firefox and IE8 may add it by default as well. That's already a very popular Firefox add-on so it's not a big stretch to imagine it part of the stock installation. And Microsoft wants to push Silverlight.
The use of flash is driven by advertising dollars. Already virtually all the mobile ad space can't use flash. Safari with ClickToFlash knocks off another 10% of the ad market for flash, Firefox another 30%. If my ads can't be seen by most mobile users and 40+% of the desktop users, ad designers will switch to something else very quickly. Once the ad designers are gone, flash becomes just a specialty plugin for certain kinds of interactive web sites.
That's going to be the next shot in the flash/html5 conflict. Not disable flash completely but build in ClickToFlash as a Safari option and default it to on. It's a dramatic improvement in the browsing experience with no loss of functionality.
Firefox and IE8 may add it by default as well. That's already a very popular Firefox add-on so it's not a big stretch to imagine it part of the stock installation. And Microsoft wants to push Silverlight.
The use of flash is driven by advertising dollars. Already virtually all the mobile ad space can't use flash. Safari with ClickToFlash knocks off another 10% of the ad market for flash, Firefox another 30%. If my ads can't be seen by most mobile users and 40+% of the desktop users, ad designers will switch to something else very quickly. Once the ad designers are gone, flash becomes just a specialty plugin for certain kinds of interactive web sites.
Interesting points and welcome to the forum. I agree that ads will have to switch from being Flash to webcode, but I have my doubts about ClickToFlash or its equivalent will be added to Safari, though I hope you are correct. Would there not be any anti-trust ramifications if Apple, Google, MS and Mozilla started offering that as part of the browser?
Watch "Activity Monitor" with YouTube.
2.8 GHz C2D MBP hits 50% with Flash video.
With the same video it hits less 15% with HTML5.
What does that say about Flahs?
Fully agree .
will the porn industry change to HTML5?
Apple and netbook makers are producing what people want, and they want cheap web/email/word processing type computers and devices instead of large bulky, powerful, power hungry portable devices like laptops.
Unfortunately it's hard to reverse course once you make a standard like Flash.
It all has to do with games, higher quality 3D games mostly, going to consoles mostly instead of computers. Means most people don't need a powerful computer anymore.
Anything that needs a lot of performance can be either done on a desktop machine or "cloud computing" from a smaller portable device if need be.
All has to with the thermal wall being reached in processor performance.
So Flash needs a rewrite to run on smaller processor devices and touchscreens, like the iPad.
In fact a lot of websites will have to be updated to have the iPad version of Flash content so it can be interacted with correctly.
Just to let everyone know, someone made Photoshop 1.0 run on a iPhone...
So it's possible, it's just going to take time. No use crying, the iPad was just announced it's no wonder Flash isn't allowed on the device.
Eventually it will, if the device sells well.
Interesting points and welcome to the forum. I agree that ads will have to switch from being Flash to webcode, but I have my doubts about ClickToFlash or its equivalent will be added to Safari, though I hope you are correct. Would there not be any anti-trust ramifications if Apple, Google, MS and Mozilla started offering that as part of the browser?
Early browsers had the option to load images automatically or only when user requested. There are preferences for enabling java or javascript or pop-up windows. Enabling flash by default or by user request seems exactly the same kind of user control option. So, no, I don't think there are any anti-trust issues.
Why would Apple not add ClickToFlash type functionality to Safari? What would be the downside for them?
And when was the last time you bought a device with a firewire 400 connections which didn't also offer USB-2 or firewire 800?
And what exactly do you slide into that express card slot, can only speak from UK experience, but every wireless provider in the UK offers their services via a USB dongle...
My Intel iMac has no firewire 800 connection. Probably didn't exist yet. My wife had the misfortune of pulling the trigger on a new MacBook pro when Apple decided the world didn't need firewire 400 anymore.
I guess the next product I buy wont have firewire or USB or express card or a DVD drive or flash or a matte screen. It will be called an iPad, a revolutionary device that will change the world and put Apple's stock over 300.
And why not? If Steve Jobs wants to force people to go beyond Adobe Flash, he should force real Mac users to stop using Flash altogether by banning Flash from MacOS X 10.5.x and 10.6.x versions.
Why not just go to http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/141/tn_14157.html and uninstall flash on your computer. There - now you no longer have to deal with it without deciding for the rest of the Mac world what they should / should not have on their computers.
Why not just go to http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/141/tn_14157.html and uninstall flash on your computer. There - now you no longer have to deal with it without deciding for the rest of the Mac world what they should / should not have on their computers.
Yes but unfortunately doing that yields a compromised computer much like the Chinese stripped of Google.
Where I do not understand you though is why this is justification for either outlawing flash (which is what the effect would be if HTML 5 were made the industry standard) or why Adobe should voluntary give up a revenue stream to make Mac users happy.
Are you suggesting that HTML 5 should not be approved as an open standard because it would harm Adobe if there was an alternative to Flash?
If the standard is finalized, approved and subsequently takes hold no one owes Adobe anything. There would be nothing to keep them from creating a suite of awesome tools to design for the web using open standards. They would need to either adapt or move on.
Early browsers had the option to load images automatically or only when user requested. There are preferences for enabling java or javascript or pop-up windows. Enabling flash by default or by user request seems exactly the same kind of user control option. So, no, I don't think there are any anti-trust issues.
Why would Apple not add ClickToFlash type functionality to Safari? What would be the downside for them?
I'm not so sure. First of all, all those items came well before Safari was developed. Secondly, Jobs and Apple have already talked about how Flash in disparaging ways and are trying to promote good, free alternatives. They might not win but I can certainly see this being an issue of Apple illegally using it's position to hurt Flash while promoting options it has a vested interest it.
Apple's rebuttal could be that they do still ship makes with Flash installed and that the reason for the images, java, and JS on/off options are for bandwidth and/or security. Apple could also argue that the Plug-ins on/off option doesn't allow Flash to be used at all if that is turned off and that a comprehensive option would allow the best of both world for users and Adobe.
It would be great if it happens but I see some pitfalls for the first to offer it. The best way to make it natural is for the lesser browsers to include support first making it an copycat option for more popular browsers.
I see what you're saying, but that isn't a message to send. Macs can handle Flash, albeit much more poorly than HTML5 video tag for the same function. Flash wasn't designed for mobiles and Adobe dropped on the ball on development so it makes absolute sense not to include it there, but that doesn't mean Flash can't run on the desktop and doesn't have uses on the desktop. Let's not forget that the way Flash interacts with the user is by and large designed for a mouse and keyboard, not a finger-based touchscreen which makes most of the Flash world inaccessible for even Windows tablets.
Like many on this forum, I have Flash installed with ClickToFlash installed to control it. Not installing Flash on Macs would mean another thing to install on a new Mac. I listened to BBC Radio 1 all morning with Flash. It was taking 100%/200% across two-core for several hours for 48Kbps HE-AAC audio but that is that. If I were using just the battery Id get 1hr:37min out of a brand new 4400mAh battery. Not good!edit: I just found an unofficial Dashboard Wdiget for BBC Radio. Reduced my load to 5%. Awesome!
Thanks for the link.
Are you suggesting that HTML 5 should not be approved as an open standard because it would harm Adobe if there was an alternative to Flash?
If the standard is finalized, approved and subsequently takes hold no one owes Adobe anything. There would be nothing to keep them from creating a suite of awesome tools to design for the web using open standards. They would need to either adapt or move on.
It's not as if Adobe doesn't have the talent for SVG/OpenVG and rich multimedia development to produce the tools of choice.