Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th May 2010 10:45 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless While most of us here on the OSNews team are proponents of HTML5, we're all fully aware that Flash serves an important role on the web today, and will most likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Flash has a rather spotty record when it comes to performance, and so far, hasn't been able to run well on mobile devices. It seems this is about to change, as an Adobe evangelist has showed off Flash 10.1 on Android 2.2 (Froyo) running on the Nexus One. And eerlijk is eerlijk, it looks pretty darn impressive, especially considering how far they've come.
Order by: Score:
Not too shabby
by vaette on Tue 11th May 2010 11:05 UTC
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

Not too shabby a demo, could be useful. I am not that worried about battery life, in most cases this type of animations and video will tax the handset close to max either way, so it will be a drain, but not really worse than if it was done through different methods.

Will have to try it out myself before I can really judge, but personally I consider this to be good for competition. The HTML5 stuff wouldn't have happened without Flash showing the way, and Flash would not have gotten its recent improvements (open spec, much better hardware acceleration in 10.1, new mobile player) without HTML5 chasing after it. I think we have room for both for a long time yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Maybe this link is also useful
by REM2000 on Tue 11th May 2010 11:15 UTC in reply to "Maybe this link is also useful"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

if we are talking about flash in the sense of video playback, i.e. youtube style, then flash will easily put my browser at about 110% (it's dual core), HTML5 on youtube will put my browser at about 40%.

This is a snow leopard machine, 2GB RAM 1.83GHZ Core Duo Processor 10.6.3 and Safari.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Wait until you have hardware acceleration. Flash 10.1 on Windows drops to like 10-15%.

Reply Score: 4

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Not sure what you guys are watching but I only get to 5-7%.. i5 quad, 4gb ram, win7 home prem, firefox.

Reply Score: 5

Preston5 Member since:
2010-03-19

Notice the number of 'unoptimized' videos in that demo? One would have to guess that means those videos will require more battery power than those encoded with H.264.

Reply Score: 1

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I know it's pointless, but I still checked it on an old pentium m@1.8ghz laptop I still have laying around, with multiple youtube videos, cpu was between 25-40% (debian testing, firefox 3.6.4, flash 10,0,32,18). I knew good old ibm thinkpads haven't lost their touch ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Maybe this link is also useful
by Kroc on Tue 11th May 2010 11:18 UTC in reply to "Maybe this link is also useful"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

This just in: Over-engineered eye-candy websites use a lot of CPU. Full story at 10.

Abusing HTML/CSS/JS is just as bad as abusing Flash. The main difference is that a) it’s _really_ easy to do with Flash, and difficult to do with HTML and b) anybody can help improve Gecko/Webkit to fix performance, but only Adobe can fix Flash.

I made this quote a while ago, and I’m going to stick to it: http://camendesign.com/quote/flash-push

It’s good that Flash is improving, but it is in no way beneficial to the long term survival of the web. No web technology should depend on one company’s profit margins and what platforms they decide to support or not.

Edited 2010-05-11 11:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This just in: Over-engineered eye-candy websites use a lot of CPU. Full story at 10.


Haha, if Flash is coming to Android, I hope somebody develops a flashblock plugin too. I don't want this shit on my desktop, and damn sure don't want it on my phone.

Hey Thom, how do you know it's any better on security? I'll let you install it so if somebody's phone gets rooted because of a Flash vulnerability, it won't be mine ;)

Edited 2010-05-11 11:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Heh yeah, I wanted to put that in the article but forgot.

Flashblock +23462346.

Reply Score: 1

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Correction: Flash is beneficial in the sense that it prioritises what features browsers are going to have to add in order to ultimately replace Flash. HTML still requires _massive_ improvement to Video/Audio as well as the addition of webcam/microphone support &c.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

There is this assumption that javascript + canvas or svg is more efficient then flash, and that is totally wrong. If you want to do animations on the web, flash still wipes the floor with everything else that is out there.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't know about the difficulty in abusing javascript. Its pretty dang easy. Just create an infinite ( or near infinite) loop. Been a while since I did that accidentally, but it used to kill IE, firefox, opera. If javascript is given its own separate thread than the browser gui, then it sort of goes away.

Reply Score: 3

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I mean developers who create a site with fancy effects (e.g. Disney), not trying to purposefully crash your browser in the fastest manner. You can write a for-loop in Flash too., but it’s inherently easier to pile on the special effects with Flash than it is with HTML/CSS

Yet. Adobe are supposed to be working on HTML5 development tools ;)

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yet. Adobe are supposed to be working on HTML5 development tools ;)

Oh my god... Coming from Adobe, this means bloated html code which you can't easily block. NOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!

(Actually, looking at the article's demo, it's a bit unfair since they seem to be working on performance now that newer technologies predate flash, but who cares ^^ For years I've been enduring horrible performance from Adobe software, it's not some random laggy demo of a product which should have been released for 6 months which is going to appease my anger against their devs ^^)

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah that was my other point. Its more difficult to screw up anything that doesn't have an easy way to create it. That will change if Adobe creates an html 5 animator. Although, I thought they already had one at some point. Adobe was promising great things with svg ... until they bought Macromedia.

Reply Score: 4

And here is the reality...
by Tony Swash on Tue 11th May 2010 11:25 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Jeff Croft on Adobe’s Android Flash Demo at FlashCamp Seattle

http://jeffcroft.com/blog/2010/may/08/android-flash-demo-flashcamp-...

As I have said before Steve Job's is praying that the other phone makers will put Flash on their phones.

Reply Score: 0

RE: And here is the reality...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 11th May 2010 11:29 UTC in reply to "And here is the reality..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, we have a demo of beta software that broke down, and a demo of that same beta software that worked just fine.

The outrage!

Reply Score: 5

Hilarious
by jackeebleu on Tue 11th May 2010 11:27 UTC
jackeebleu
Member since:
2006-01-26

You mock Steve Jobs for his comments on Flash, then agree with him on Flash's foibles, make up your mind, you are beginning to look a bit silly.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hilarious
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 11th May 2010 11:33 UTC in reply to "Hilarious"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You mock Steve Jobs for his comments on Flash, then agree with him on Flash's foibles, make up your mind, you are beginning to look a bit silly.


I agree with Jobs that up until now, the released versions of Flash have been abysmal in both performance as well as security.

However, contrary to many other people, I'm capable of changing my convictions if I see that a product is improving. I've tested Flash 10.1 beta/RC releases on both Windows and Linux, and they are MILES better, performance-wise, than previous releases.

There is nothing "silly" about being honest about that. Sure, I could go down the dishonest route, and simply not report on Flash' improvements, but for that kind of reporting, you better go to MacDailyNews.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Hilarious
by kristoph on Tue 11th May 2010 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Hilarious"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Yes but given that you rail against H264 don't you think that Flash as a whole is a much bigger problem?

I mean the codec debate is mainly about playing video. Flash makes the whole web experience proprietary, locked to one vendor, and essentially restricted to platforms that vendor chooses to support.

That's bad right, real bad.

]{

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hilarious
by Kroc on Tue 11th May 2010 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hilarious"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

But it’s not a standard, nor even a de-facto one. There’s nothing that forces anybody, anywhere to develop using Flash. However, in the case of the iPhone OS that doesn’t have Flash, the only way to play video in the browser is with MPEG4.

Also Flash doesn’t adversely effect other development tools; where as the goal with H.264 is to threaten other codecs with FUD to stymie competition.

As much as I dislike Flash, it is just one development tool out of many and remains optional.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hilarious
by kaiwai on Tue 11th May 2010 11:55 UTC in reply to "Hilarious"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You mock Steve Jobs for his comments on Flash, then agree with him on Flash's foibles, make up your mind, you are beginning to look a bit silly.


Um, I read the article and Thom quite clearly states that Flash had problems *IN THE PAST* but now things have improved. You know, how about assessing something based on the present rather than what happened 10 years ago.

More important Steve Jobs has no right to dictate what a person can and can't load onto their iPhone; I find it funny that so many here whine about how terrible it is but has it stopped them from going out and purchasing an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch? If a person wants to load on Flash than it is there right - the moment that the device leaves the store, the customer owns it. If owning it involves the desire to install a battery sucking, CPU hogging, bandwidth hogging, browser crashing plugin, then so be it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hilarious
by mrhasbean on Tue 11th May 2010 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Hilarious"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

If owning it involves the desire to install a battery sucking, CPU hogging, bandwidth hogging, browser crashing plugin, then so be it.


And then scream like a banshee at the DEVICE creator because their battery melts after 10 minutes or the device gets rooted and someone buys 10k worth of goodies using their credit card details that were stored on the thing.

Joe and Joanne Lunchbucket will NEVER blame the software for these things, it will ALWAYS be the hardware, and therefore the company that makes the hardware. Anyone with significant experience in computer support knows this, it's always "this stupid computer", never "this stupid program". Apple achieve their customer satisfaction levels by creating environments that, for their target audience, just work. And yes, sometimes that makes them restrictive in areas, but that's their market. Expecting them to change their successful model to please the minority who either don't or won't use their products anyway is just foolish.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hilarious
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 11th May 2010 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hilarious"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Joe and Joanne Lunchbucket will NEVER blame the software for these things, it will ALWAYS be the hardware, and therefore the company that makes the hardware.


So... Basic freedoms and age-old conventions (i.e., the device I buy is MINE, and if I want to shove it up my behind, I should be able to) should just be thrown out because Apple could possibly get complaints?

Of course, this also has to do with the downright retarded American justice system, with its massive damage suits and the likes. Maybe you guys ought to fix that instead of giving companies this much power. Fight the cause, not the symptoms.

Edited 2010-05-11 13:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Hilarious
by mrhasbean on Tue 11th May 2010 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hilarious"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

So... Basic freedoms and age-old conventions (i.e., the device I buy is MINE, and if I want to shove it up my behind, I should be able to) should just be thrown out because Apple could possibly get complaints?


If it was YOUR money and YOUR company you'd take the necessary steps to ensure that customer feedback is generally good.

And your argument reinforces what I said. If you decided to use it as an anal stimulator it would be outside of the specified functionality of the device so if you didn't get the results you were expecting they can rightfully say it was never designed for that, just like they can when people use them jailbroken. Not allowing Flash on there is Apple's way of saying "it wasn't designed for this", and there's no denying it also helps their bottom line, but it's their prerogative AND responsibility to their shareholders to ensure satisfaction levels amongst their TARGET MARKET remain high.

Edited 2010-05-11 23:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hilarious
by kaiwai on Wed 12th May 2010 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hilarious"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

And then scream like a banshee at the DEVICE creator because their battery melts after 10 minutes or the device gets rooted and someone buys 10k worth of goodies using their credit card details that were stored on the thing.

Joe and Joanne Lunchbucket will NEVER blame the software for these things, it will ALWAYS be the hardware, and therefore the company that makes the hardware. Anyone with significant experience in computer support knows this, it's always "this stupid computer", never "this stupid program". Apple achieve their customer satisfaction levels by creating environments that, for their target audience, just work. And yes, sometimes that makes them restrictive in areas, but that's their market. Expecting them to change their successful model to please the minority who either don't or won't use their products anyway is just foolish.


And you don't think that happens already? Please, if someone complains and uploads their 'comment' onto an internet forum or blog and I can assure you within a few seconds a legion of fanboys will rip them a new one. I don't see any traction of complaints other than the same sort of complaints that people have about Mac and Windows computers that are shared around the metaphorical coffee table. End users are going to be idiots regardless - and all the restrictions only serve to frustrate those who have their act together.

As for me, you're right - I won't use their products and I'm happier for it. I have a MacBook and iMac (soon to be replaced by Windows 7 based computers) but I'll never own an iPod Touch or an iPhone. I've voted with my wallet - but your assumption is based on perfect information. Lets face it, the average person is as thick as two short planks and wouldn't know what he or she is missing unless they had the knowledge. Who gets screwed in the end are the clueless end user who is missing out on something they never knew about and developers who want to target the customer but can't because of ridiculous restrictions. The end user might not be able to see the damage of such behaviour to themselves but there is damage. Yes, it does sound condescending but that is the reality - 90% of the population are mouth breathers with the top 10% hanging out here knowing what the alternatives are, with the 90% pretty much dependent on the top 10% to guide them in a particular direction. How many times have you been asked for advice regarding purchasing a computer? purchasing a phone? purchasing almost anything that you've become the 'first port of call' when dispensing advice like sort of guru.

Edited 2010-05-12 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Hilarious
by Cody Evans on Tue 11th May 2010 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Hilarious"
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

the moment that the device leaves the store, the customer owns it.


Under Apple's EULA, by using the device, you agree that you don't own the device and that your leasing it from Apple. And in the US, the EULA has the same legal standing as a signed contract...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hilarious
by elsewhere on Wed 12th May 2010 06:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hilarious"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

And in the US, the EULA has the same legal standing as a signed contract...


No, it doesn't. There have been court decisions on both sides of the fence, and nothing ground-breakingly precedent setting.

Contract law is contract law, and a given EULA has to meet the criteria within a given jurisdiction.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hilarious
by Tony Swash on Tue 11th May 2010 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Hilarious"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Um, I read the article and Thom quite clearly states that Flash had problems *IN THE PAST* but now things have improved. You know, how about assessing something based on the present rather than what happened 10 years ago.

More important Steve Jobs has no right to dictate what a person can and can't load onto their iPhone; I find it funny that so many here whine about how terrible it is but has it stopped them from going out and purchasing an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch? If a person wants to load on Flash than it is there right - the moment that the device leaves the store, the customer owns it. If owning it involves the desire to install a battery sucking, CPU hogging, bandwidth hogging, browser crashing plugin, then so be it.


You do realise that this is all academic so far because Adobe have failed to released a version of Flash that can run on any phone let alone the iPhone?

Lets see - As a responsible company with a responsible attitude to your customers do you:

(a) promise to open your platform to some as yet unreleased piece of software (from a company with a history of releasing buggy inefficient version of the same software on the desktop) on a wing and prayer based on some vapourware demo that shows a buggy piece of crap

- or -

(b) say "no thanks we pass on that one"

And before people start with the "installing flash is my human right" type of pomposity remember that the bulk of iPhone users, when browsing the web and confronted with "you need to click here to install flash plugin to view this site" message, will probably click OK. Then they will wonder why their iPhone is running so slowly, and why it keeps crashing, then blame Apple for selling them a piece of crap.

Why do people in places like OSNews, who apparently are so devoted to openness, spend so much time defending a monopolistic and unnecessary piece of proprietary shabbiness like Flash?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hilarious
by kaiwai on Wed 12th May 2010 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hilarious"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realise that this is all academic so far because Adobe have failed to released a version of Flash that can run on any phone let alone the iPhone?


Again, what is it with your fixation on the past? they're developing Flash 10.1 for such devices today, companies are working through the 'Open Screen Project' - and as seen in the demonstration, they're getting results. The only thing you seem to be hell bent on is ranting about what has happened in the past when your focus should on what is Adobe and partners doing now, and the delivery of it. All evidence shows that Apple was right to be sceptical of Flash based on what existed before 10.1, but the circumstances have changed; there is no Flash Light and Flash desktop, there is only 'Flash'. Flash is being developed and yes it has taken along time because surprise, surprise, its very complex stuff! (something throwing more man power at won't fix).

For the record I don't support Flash or Silverlight; in a perfect world HTML5 would be completed by now, all the h264 patent holders would donate it to W3C for the good of humanity and so on. But we don't live in that world, we live in this world - patents up the wazoo, companies following their own self interest for the benefit of their shareholders and end customers wanting solutions that allow quick turn around from idea into a website (Flash and Silverlight). Therefore, because I live in this real world, I have to deal with what is here - Silverlight and Flash, for better or worse.

Edited 2010-05-12 05:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hilarious
by Tony Swash on Wed 12th May 2010 11:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hilarious"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Again, what is it with your fixation on the past?



I am not fixated on the past I am fixated on the present. As of this moment there is no Flash on phones. It hasn't been released. It has been demoed and some very recent high profile demos showed severe bugs and some video subsequently showed those bugs gone. Videos are not a reliable guide to unreleased products (remember Courier). Lets wait until its released and see what Flash mobile actually does.

In the meantime Apple is saying no to an unreleased and untested product from the same company that has produced extremely buggy and inefficient versions of software from the same software family.

Why should they change their position until the new wonder Flash mobile is released and tested in the real world?

More importantly why should they say yes to unreleased Flash as long as saying no does not negatively impinge on their competitive position in the market place and adversely affect sales?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by spiderman
by spiderman on Tue 11th May 2010 11:51 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

The HTML5 stuff wouldn't have happened without Flash showing the way.
SVG actually predates Flash. Flash happened because SVG had no authoring tool. HTML 5 is good but still no authoring tool.
anybody can help improve Gecko/Webkit to fix performance, but only Adobe can fix Flash.
Use Gnash, FTW. Why people keep using Flash is beyond me. Gnash does run Youtube and daily motion fine so why use Flash?

I've tested Flash 10.1 beta/RC releases on both Windows and Linux, and they are MILES better, performance-wise, than previous releases.

WTF man? You are dutch! Just use the metric system like the rest of the world. Miles are from the middle ages. Even those who are still stuck with miles (in the UK and former colonies) know it! If after 200 years you still can't use meters, how can we expect people to use HTML 5?

Edited 2010-05-11 11:55 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by spiderman
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 11th May 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by spiderman"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

WTF man? You are dutch! Just use the metric system like the rest of the world. Miles are from the middle ages. Even those who are still stuck with miles (in the UK and former colonies) know it!


We use "miles" in fixed expressions, e.g., "mijlenver" which means "miles afar".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by spiderman
by spiderman on Tue 11th May 2010 12:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by spiderman"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Well, some things never move. I guess Miles, IE 6 and Flash will haunt humanity until the end of time.

Edited 2010-05-11 12:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by spiderman
by smashIt on Tue 11th May 2010 17:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by spiderman"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

SVG actually predates Flash. Flash happened because SVG had no authoring tool. HTML 5 is good but still no authoring tool.


according to wikipedia flash predates svg by 4 years

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by spiderman
by MamiyaOtaru on Tue 11th May 2010 23:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by spiderman"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

can't complain about idiom. Might as well try to change the Robert Frost poem to read "And kilometers to go before I sleep"

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by spiderman
by judgen on Wed 12th May 2010 01:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by spiderman"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

You know there is a metric mile, right? its 10km.
Dix mille.

Reply Score: 3

maemo/meego
by chekr on Tue 11th May 2010 13:02 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

i hope they also update the plugin for maemo/meego...v9 kind of sucks ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: maemo/meego
by Neolander on Tue 11th May 2010 17:16 UTC in reply to "maemo/meego"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

i hope they also update the plugin for maemo/meego...v9 kind of sucks ;)

They should, since maemo and android are both linux-based, and since Android probably uses the usual linux GUI toolkits (X11&Xv + GTK/QT...) too...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: maemo/meego
by anevilyak on Tue 11th May 2010 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE: maemo/meego"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

and since Android probably uses the usual linux GUI toolkits (X11&Xv + GTK/QT...) too...


Incorrect, the only common ground Android has is the kernel. The entire userspace of it is nothing like your typical desktop linux OS whatsoever, as you can confirm by looking at the android source code.

Reply Score: 4

Flash is not all *that* bad performance wise
by _xmv on Tue 11th May 2010 13:03 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

Playing same content using html5's h264 or theora with browser xx vs flash often end up into noticing that the HTML5 version uses a lot more CPU.
That's just video playback, no extra content. (HTML5 video implementations are probably not accelerated. Heck some people always wondered why VLC, which they thought was the fastest player is not accelerated, and "regular shitty players" perform(ed) way better)

It depends on the browser and platform. All using Flash 10 in fullscreen mode with acceleration (or 10.1 in window mode with acceleration)

Flash on Linux and MacOSX certainly is not nearly as quick as the Windows version.

I've a panasonic R3, that's a pentium m ULV 1.1ghz, running Windows XP SP3 and Flash 10.1, intel 850GM graphic chip. 6 years old. I play most youtube 720p's flash animations without noticeable lag. I assume it goes from 20 to 30fps approx. That's pretty good.

Now doing the same thing on Linux, same machine, i lose a good 5-8 fps (they also have gotten better, a year+ ago it was horrible on Flash 9)

Reply Score: 1

Some code and codec nonsense in comparisons
by tomz on Tue 11th May 2010 13:23 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

I was doing flash on my Nokia tablet over 2 years ago. It was not great but more than passable - and I even hacked the camera to work (which I don't think is doable in HTML5). And because the browser was firefox based I added flashblock and adblock.

H.264 enclosed in an HTML5 wrapper somehow takes any different amount of CPU than when h.264 in a Flash wrapper? This is just stupid. If video acceleration APIs are withheld, Adobe can't make it faster, but I remember way back as to why Excel (3.0?) was faster than Lotus, and back then it was Microsoft super-secret undocumented turbo APIs.

If there are fast codec and video libraries available or installed for a platform, I would think that all would use them and there should be no difference in speed.

Also, I could actually block flash on most platforms I use. Including Android. It is open and extensible.

Go ahead and fix webkit - but remember that doesn't mean it will get into any particular version of Safari (or Chrome - but you can fork Chrome).

Which is one of my big fears and complaints with Apple - they are also blocking finer grained security features and the rest in their mobile browsing. Will ID theives get Granny's social security number? There's nothing I can do to prevent it. Apple may make getting on the information superhighway easier, but some people will just get run-over.

Personally, I detest flash. I rarely unblock flash on any site. But that doesn't mean I'm free to criticize it in any way. Should I trust the closed Adobe flash any more than the closed Apple stuff? I think not.

Reply Score: 2

Linux
by Fettarme H-Milch on Tue 11th May 2010 14:19 UTC
Fettarme H-Milch
Member since:
2010-02-16

Linux still lags behind a bit, mostly due to the lack of hardware acceleration.


This simply does not make any sense at all.
1.) Any other playback software (VLC, Totem, ...) uses only half the CPU power of Flash without any GPU acceleration.

2.) Linux has GPU hardware acceleration: Vector graphic procedures can easily accelerated using OpenGL. Video decoding an be accelerated using the freedesktop.org standard VA-API that works with all major GPU vendors: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/vaapi

Reply Score: 3

RE: Linux
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 11th May 2010 14:22 UTC in reply to "Linux"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I never said Linux doesn't have hardware acceleration. Flash doesn't.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linux
by Fettarme H-Milch on Tue 11th May 2010 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

I never said Linux doesn't have hardware acceleration. Flash doesn't.

So? Flash still performs worse than other software that has no hardware acceleration either.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux
by Neolander on Tue 11th May 2010 17:24 UTC in reply to "Linux"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This simply does not make any sense at all.
1.) Any other playback software (VLC, Totem, ...) uses only half the CPU power of Flash without any GPU acceleration.

2.) Linux has GPU hardware acceleration: Vector graphic procedures can easily accelerated using OpenGL. Video decoding an be accelerated using the freedesktop.org standard VA-API that works with all major GPU vendors: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/vaapi

I think that there's a problem with *embedding* video in browsers on linux, not with playing it in an accelerated way. See HTML5 videos (like on http://camendesign.com/ ) with firefox 3.6 on linux. Actually, it's much more of a pain than youtube, even though being natively implemented by the browser...

See this from a flash for linux dev, too :
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2010/01/welcome_to_the_thicket.h...
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2010/01/solving_different_proble...

Edited 2010-05-11 17:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux
by Fettarme H-Milch on Tue 11th May 2010 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

I think that there's a problem with *embedding* video in browsers on linux, not with playing it in an accelerated way.

No, not really. When using other plugins than Flash on Linux to play video files (embedded using the object tag), the very same videos that played with high CPU load on YouTube with Flash, play just fine using other methods. For example I now use the "Youtube without Flash Auto" script for GreaseMonkey in conjunction with GNOME-MPlayers's Mozilla plugin: Way better performance than Flash.
Same with HTML5 video in Konqueror (same MP4 file as on YouTube).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux
by WereCatf on Tue 11th May 2010 21:50 UTC in reply to "Linux"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Video decoding an be accelerated using the freedesktop.org standard VA-API that works with all major GPU vendors: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/vaapi

Unfortunately VDPAU (Nvidia's backend for VA-API) only supports GeForce 9000 or higher and a few specific GF 8000 series cards with G9x based GPUs, and XvBA (ATI/AMD backend) only supports Radeon HD 4000 or higher.

That leaves a LOT of perfectly useable hardware without video acceleration still. I do not find any plans to implement any kind of acceleration for older hardware even though it would be possible via shader programming, atleast partially.

Reply Score: 2

hazydave
Member since:
2010-05-11

Flash does a bunch of things. One of these is video, with or without DRM. Another is structured graphics, and another still is basic Web stuff you could probably do with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript... if you had the same easy development tools.

Flash is not going to be significantly more CPU intensive on these latter two things than any other web technology. Which is of course why Jobs has been trying, successfully, to frame the whole argument around video. Sure, an action game in Flash would be fairly inefficient on a handheld. So would an action game done in Javascript.

Of course, Flash video is either VP6 or H.264... and here's where Apple cheated most of all. There's no reason H.264 in flash shouldn't run just as fast as any other H.264 on your portable device... and in fact, YouTube players on both Android and iPhoneOS do exactly this. Flash itself can't do this on the iPhone, simply because they don't have the necessary video acceleration APIs in the OS. MacOS didn't even have this until earlier this year. Windows has for several years, and the new one (DXVA 2.0) is very good... takes 1080/60p playback on my desktop from stutting video at close to full CPU (all cores) to about 12%, since I have a GPU that can help out.

Jobs really wants to kill Flash, or wound it enough that no one cares he won't support it. Right now, it's clear that Flash is popular enough that iPhones are second-class web browsers.. they can't see much of the web. It's not just video... I tried to order a hamper for my wife on JCPenney.com last week. You need Flash to check-out. Stupid, sure, but it's widespread enough that websites use Flash this way, and there's absolutely no reason that wouldn't work just dandy on a smartphone (of course, I was browsing on an Android phone... I expect to get the "full web" soon enough).

So misdirecting this toward free video, Apple can make Flash sound evil and "open" things like VIDEO tags (albeit with proprietary format H.264 being their only intended target) sound good. But it's more complex than that.

Having made Flash non-essential, Apple won't get chastised for not supporting it... the Macfaithful and iPhonies are already parroting Jobs' denouncements of Flash. This leaves Apple and the iTunes store as the only source of paid video for the iPhone, since paid video invariably means DRMed video. And you don't get DRM in HTML5.

This is also why Microsoft is doing the same thing, pushing H.264 and only H.264 in the web browser and claiming to dump Flash support in IE9. It's not just that Microsoft copies everything Apple does (they do, but it's more). But Microsoft, of course, owns Silverlight, a direct competitor to Flash. They can deliver DRMed content via Silverlight... partners like Netflix already do. MS will have Silverlight on Windows, no Flash, and Silverlight on all devices.

Devices accelerate H.264, but not Ogg Theora, thus the push for H.264 only. But this also makes things difficult for small companies like Opera, who can't afford H.264 licensing in their free browser, or FOSS folks, who can't legally provide an open source H.264 CODEC. And that's just fine with Apple and Microsoft... making them the second-class browser is just not a problem, but a side-effect advantage. And of course, the FOSS people are playing right into this, building Theora into the browser, rather than using any CODEC supplied by the OS, which could include H.264.

Curiously, only Google is doing the thing that most benefits customers: support everything. They have H.264 and Theora support in Chrome, and they're working with Adobe to extend Flash. If Flash is truly evil, the market will move away from it, but only when that's possible. HTML5 isn't even finalized until 2012 at best, and there are no replacement authoring tools that make HTML5 as easy as Flash. Maybe they will but, but keep in mind, most Flash is "programmed" by content people, artists and all, not programmers. So these tools matter. They are the sole reason Flash is popular.

Reply Score: 4

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Excellent post. If I hadn't already posted, I'd gladly vote you up ;)

Reply Score: 1

Is there hope for the Linux client?
by jboss1995 on Tue 11th May 2010 16:35 UTC
jboss1995
Member since:
2007-05-02

Since Android is Linux built with the ARM arc does this mean good things for the Linux i368/64 flash player?

Reply Score: 1

Flash Kill
by dbolgheroni on Tue 11th May 2010 18:24 UTC
dbolgheroni
Member since:
2007-01-18

I don't like Apple either, but I think Jobs is doing a great job trying to kill Flash.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flash Kill
by steogede2 on Wed 12th May 2010 19:25 UTC in reply to "Flash Kill"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

I don't like Apple either, but I think Jobs is doing a great job trying to kill Flash.


True, but MPEG-LA are doing a much better job of (inadvertantly) keeping Flash alive.

Reply Score: 2

Looks awkward
by daveak on Thu 13th May 2010 19:23 UTC
daveak
Member since:
2008-12-29

Other than the game switched to fullscreen that all looked very awkward on such a small screen especially with the tap to focus the flash. Rather than showing why Flash should be on a phone it shows more why if it should be there it shouldn't be in the browser.

Reply Score: 1