I don't think that's the main argument at all. I think it's much more to do with the development tools and that web developers don't have HTML5 tools that come anywhere close to the capabilities of the Flash development tools.
Now Adobe has no competition, who is going to provide these HTML5 development tools?
That's sometimes mentioned, but it's certainly not the main argument. If one were to actually go back through all the threads on this topic and count instances of arguments, the, "Flash isn't going anywhere, it's too entrenched," argument would probably outnumber the tools argument by at least 5 to 1. The tools are either already here, as in the case of video, or will come. There were no tools when the web started, yet it was built, and the tools followed. Tool development will always lag. If Adobe doesn't build them, someone else will, they probably are building them right now.
Whilst it is true that hardware acceleration APIs only became available recently on OS X, it is a massive red-herring perpetuated by Adobe that hardware acceleration is required for decent performance.
Oh yeah? You obviously haven't a clue if you think that hardware acceleration for video decoding isn't required for any decent HD decoding performance, i.e. unless you want to see your CPU handling most of the hard work that a GPU can do, then bitch that is use too much CPU when viewing HD videos (through flash or not). I can't remember if there is any option to disable hardware acceleration with quicktime (Safe mode GDI only?), if yes then maybe you should try it and see by yourself. My first nvida graphic card with hardware video decoding allowed me to look at full-HD videos while keeping my CPU of that time around 10% of utilization whereas that CPU alone was struggling to do so alone while being stuck at 100% utilization. Just saying.
You're obviously too lazy to read the post I linked to. Here's a summary:
Flash playing a 720p H.264 flv file (playback not started until fully downloaded) = 150% CPU utilisation. Same flv video played with VLC (no hardware decoding) = 40% CPU utilisation.
Conclusion: hardware acceleration not required to give good performance, and Adobe suck at optimising code. Yes, if you want to get CPU usage down to 10% or lower, you're going to need hardware acceleration. If you just want CPU usage well below 100%, you just need to be not shit at coding.
You're obviously too lazy to read the post I linked to. Here's a summary:
Flash playing a 720p H.264 flv file (playback not started until fully downloaded) = 150% CPU utilisation. Same flv video played with VLC (no hardware decoding) = 40% CPU utilisation.
Conclusion: hardware acceleration not required to give good performance, and Adobe suck at optimising code. Yes, if you want to get CPU usage down to 10% or lower, you're going to need hardware acceleration. If you just want CPU usage well below 100%, you just need to be not shit at coding.
Even with HW Acceleration of Flash 10.1 "Gala" Preview 2 on Mac OS X playing a video in Flash requires more processing than booting into Windows (Bootcamp, not a VM) and playing that same video in Flash 10.0 without HW acceleration.
Yup, Flash on the Mac is a sad story. It seems to slow the entire web browsing experience down.
Many times when loading a page containing a lot of Flash elements Safari stalls (beach ball) for a few seconds and now with Safari 5 and Flash 10.1 it's more choppy to scroll pages containing Flash than it was before (Safari 4 and Flash 10.1 seem OK though and so do Flash 10 and Safari 5).
I don't see anything of this when browsing in Windows 7 on the same hardware. For whatever reason web browsing in Windows 7 feels snappier overall and page scrolling is (more or less) always smooth.
And, it's not just a "small minority" of ClickToFlash users. There are quite a few users on all platforms who actively and intentionally block Flash using ad blockers and other techniques. Flash is already widely not used.
I assume you have some facts to demonstrate that these conclusions and reality coincide?
As for the desktop, the number of Clicktoflash users is apparently growing at very rapid rates, that means that Flash on the desktop IS in decline - whether you want to admit it or not.
It may or may not mean that. You need to compare the increase in PC sales with Flash against any increase in Click-to-Flash sales.
And do you have any information whatsoever on these two fronts?
I'm pretty sure 8 million represents the majority of all computer users.
1. No one that I'm aware has argued that the "majority of all computer users" are blocking Flash at the moment. What was argued, and is correct, is that users are blocking Flash in significant and increasing numbers.
2. "... which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option." There are obviously many other ways to go about this. Eight million here, eight million there, pretty soon you have some pretty big numbers.
1. No one that I'm aware has argued that the "majority of all computer users" are blocking Flash at the moment. What was argued, and is correct, is that users are blocking Flash in significant and increasing numbers.
2. "... which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option." There are obviously many other ways to go about this. Eight million here, eight million there, pretty soon you have some pretty big numbers.
You did. You said that flash is not that much in use, and went on to say that people are using clickforflash, blah blah, insinuating that most computer users were blocking flash rendering flash pretty much dead.
nonsense. Pure, BS.
Flash with either die in the next few years slowly, or, it will morph and stay alive.But currently, it ain't dead on the desktop, at all.
You did. You said that flash is not that much in use, and went on to say that people are using clickforflash, blah blah, insinuating that most computer users were blocking flash rendering flash pretty much dead. ...
No, I said that it is increasingly not being used by more and more users. Just as it is increasingly not in use by more and more content publishers. (Which, BTW, isn't inconsistent with your claims of new customers, in case you were planning to rebut on that basis.)
No, I said that it is increasingly not being used by more and more users. Just as it is increasingly not in use by more and more content publishers. (Which, BTW, isn't inconsistent with your claims of new customers, in case you were planning to rebut on that basis.)
oh, now you're back tracking. I thought you said flash -was dead-. Now, you're saying more and more users are using flash less. No numbers to support anything, just a bunch nonsense ranting.
Comments
I don't think that's the main argument at all. I think it's much more to do with the development tools and that web developers don't have HTML5 tools that come anywhere close to the capabilities of the Flash development tools.
Now Adobe has no competition, who is going to provide these HTML5 development tools?
That's sometimes mentioned, but it's certainly not the main argument. If one were to actually go back through all the threads on this topic and count instances of arguments, the, "Flash isn't going anywhere, it's too entrenched," argument would probably outnumber the tools argument by at least 5 to 1. The tools are either already here, as in the case of video, or will come. There were no tools when the web started, yet it was built, and the tools followed. Tool development will always lag. If Adobe doesn't build them, someone else will, they probably are building them right now.
Can we switch the conversation to the world cup or something? At this point I think I could respond for everyone on this thread and vice versa.
might as well...
Whilst it is true that hardware acceleration APIs only became available recently on OS X, it is a massive red-herring perpetuated by Adobe that hardware acceleration is required for decent performance.
Oh yeah? You obviously haven't a clue if you think that hardware acceleration for video decoding isn't required for any decent HD decoding performance, i.e. unless you want to see your CPU handling most of the hard work that a GPU can do, then bitch that is use too much CPU when viewing HD videos (through flash or not). I can't remember if there is any option to disable hardware acceleration with quicktime (Safe mode GDI only?), if yes then maybe you should try it and see by yourself. My first nvida graphic card with hardware video decoding allowed me to look at full-HD videos while keeping my CPU of that time around 10% of utilization whereas that CPU alone was struggling to do so alone while being stuck at 100% utilization. Just saying.
Tool development will always lag. If Adobe doesn't build them, someone else will, they probably are building them right now.
I hope they are making plastics too.
Sorry, only a few old-timers will get that one.
Oh yeah? You obviously haven't a clue
Flash playing a 720p H.264 flv file (playback not started until fully downloaded) = 150% CPU utilisation. Same flv video played with VLC (no hardware decoding) = 40% CPU utilisation.
Conclusion: hardware acceleration not required to give good performance, and Adobe suck at optimising code. Yes, if you want to get CPU usage down to 10% or lower, you're going to need hardware acceleration. If you just want CPU usage well below 100%, you just need to be not shit at coding.
Flash playing a 720p H.264 flv file (playback not started until fully downloaded) = 150% CPU utilisation. Same flv video played with VLC (no hardware decoding) = 40% CPU utilisation.
Conclusion: hardware acceleration not required to give good performance, and Adobe suck at optimising code. Yes, if you want to get CPU usage down to 10% or lower, you're going to need hardware acceleration. If you just want CPU usage well below 100%, you just need to be not shit at coding.
Even with HW Acceleration of Flash 10.1 "Gala" Preview 2 on Mac OS X playing a video in Flash requires more processing than booting into Windows (Bootcamp, not a VM) and playing that same video in Flash 10.0 without HW acceleration.
Many times when loading a page containing a lot of Flash elements Safari stalls (beach ball) for a few seconds and now with Safari 5 and Flash 10.1 it's more choppy to scroll pages containing Flash than it was before (Safari 4 and Flash 10.1 seem OK though and so do Flash 10 and Safari 5).
I don't see anything of this when browsing in Windows 7 on the same hardware. For whatever reason web browsing in Windows 7 feels snappier overall and page scrolling is (more or less) always smooth.
And, it's not just a "small minority" of ClickToFlash users. There are quite a few users on all platforms who actively and intentionally block Flash using ad blockers and other techniques. Flash is already widely not used.
I assume you have some facts to demonstrate that these conclusions and reality coincide?
the point is that Flash is widely not used.
Have we seen any objective information on this point?
ISTM that is is wildly inaccurate, but I will accept reasonable evidence that it is based on fact, and not just wild guesses.
I assume you have some facts to demonstrate that these conclusions and reality coincide?
Well, tekstud, there's this,
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433/
which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option.
As for the desktop, the number of Clicktoflash users is apparently growing at very rapid rates, that means that Flash on the desktop IS in decline - whether you want to admit it or not.
It may or may not mean that. You need to compare the increase in PC sales with Flash against any increase in Click-to-Flash sales.
And do you have any information whatsoever on these two fronts?
Flash is dead in the sense that it is a technology that is destined for the technology dustbin.
In that sense, every technology is "dead".
So how is Flash different from (almost?) every other technology you might name?
Why use a word that describes every technology when you are trying to differentiate Flash from the others?
Well, tekstud, there's this,
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433/
which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option.
There's also this:
"As of June 2008, the number of personal computers in use worldwide hit one billion, while another billion is expected to be reached by 2014."
I assume the 8M includes updates for existing customers, but even if it didn't the stat is nowhere near a showing that this is popular software.
In that sense, every technology is "dead".
So how is Flash different from (almost?) every other technology you might name?
Why use a word that describes every technology when you are trying to differentiate Flash from the others?
Well, tekstud, because Flash is acutely and terminally ill, particularly in comparison to HTML5, while others are not necessarily so.
I'm pretty sure 8 million represents the majority of all computer users.
1. No one that I'm aware has argued that the "majority of all computer users" are blocking Flash at the moment. What was argued, and is correct, is that users are blocking Flash in significant and increasing numbers.
2. "... which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option." There are obviously many other ways to go about this. Eight million here, eight million there, pretty soon you have some pretty big numbers.
1. No one that I'm aware has argued that the "majority of all computer users" are blocking Flash at the moment. What was argued, and is correct, is that users are blocking Flash in significant and increasing numbers.
2. "... which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option." There are obviously many other ways to go about this. Eight million here, eight million there, pretty soon you have some pretty big numbers.
You did. You said that flash is not that much in use, and went on to say that people are using clickforflash, blah blah, insinuating that most computer users were blocking flash rendering flash pretty much dead.
nonsense. Pure, BS.
Flash with either die in the next few years slowly, or, it will morph and stay alive.But currently, it ain't dead on the desktop, at all.
You did. You said that flash is not that much in use, and went on to say that people are using clickforflash, blah blah, insinuating that most computer users were blocking flash rendering flash pretty much dead. ...
No, I said that it is increasingly not being used by more and more users. Just as it is increasingly not in use by more and more content publishers. (Which, BTW, isn't inconsistent with your claims of new customers, in case you were planning to rebut on that basis.)
No, I said that it is increasingly not being used by more and more users. Just as it is increasingly not in use by more and more content publishers. (Which, BTW, isn't inconsistent with your claims of new customers, in case you were planning to rebut on that basis.)
oh, now you're back tracking. I thought you said flash -was dead-. Now, you're saying more and more users are using flash less. No numbers to support anything, just a bunch nonsense ranting.
And what new customers.