Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Change of Heart On Flash

Dotnaught writes "In a blog post, Walter Luh, co-founder of Ansca Mobile and a former employee of both Apple and Adobe, recounts how Apple once promoted Flash on the iPhone then changed its mind because Flash didn't provide the optimal mobile user experience. 'I think that Apple came to the same conclusion I've come to — namely that Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences,' he writes. Luh's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the Corona SDK, a Lua-based programming environment that strives to recapture the simplicity of early versions of Flash."

68 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Adobe Flash will die by xororand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Adobe Flash will die rather sooner than later and it won't be missed. Now if only all browser vendors could agree on a video codec for HTML5.

    1. Re:Adobe Flash will die by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yep, it'll be dead and replaced by HTML5, SVG, h.264, VRML and a host of other hot new technologies!

      Oh and on the same day, Windows will lose it's marketshare position, Linus will relicense Linux under commercial terms, Richard Stallman will buy an iPad and Steve Jobs will switch to Ubuntu.

      Imagine the possibilities!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Adobe Flash will die by XPeter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.

      What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Adobe Flash will die by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?

      Maybe HTML5 in Firefox should mean that I can right click and "save as". Then it won't really matter.

    4. Re:Adobe Flash will die by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.

      What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?

    5. Re:Adobe Flash will die by negRo_slim · · Score: 5, Funny

      What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?

      With any luck!

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    6. Re:Adobe Flash will die by Homburg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What patents and licenses? From the W3C's patent policy:

      The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.

      Of course, anything hypothetically could be patented; but HTML5 is at least in the position that there are no known patent restrictions on implementing it.

    7. Re:Adobe Flash will die by sopssa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If anything, HTML5 is actually the cause that might allow pushing Linux and Firefox even further away.

      Basically the situation is currently this;

      Microsoft: H.264 for IE (and they are already licensing it in Windows 7). Will not support Theora.
      Apple: H.264 for all OS X, iPhone and iPad. Will not support Theora.
      Google: H.264 for Chrome (but not for the open source version!). May roll out their own video codec, to mix things even a little bit more.
      Mozilla: Theora for Firefox. There is no way they can use H.264 because of countless amount of open source forks. Could only possible support it in main binary Firefox, other users left without.
      Opera: Theora. Could support H.264, but wants Theora more.

      Develop a plugin that plays H.264 video inside browser to circumvent that Firefox situation? Flash already does exactly that.

      Either HTML5 Video will seriously fail and Flash will continue dominating, or the big players will use it to push Firefox and other open source browsers and Linux off the market.

    8. Re:Adobe Flash will die by russotto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So basically you are implying that free and open source itself isn't a sustainable model? That to get full use of it, people should lower to piracy?

      Do you really expect to win a rigged game by playing by the rules?

    9. Re:Adobe Flash will die by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neither *nix nor FF are threatened by H.264. All you need is this. Pretty sure there's also a VLC plugin available that would do the trick as well.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    10. Re:Adobe Flash will die by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah. This isn't the first time some non-free stuff hasn't mixed well with Linux. Oil and water man.

      Let's see, there's libdvdcss, most wireless drivers until very recently, had to be fetched using some sketchy cutter tool. Flash gets fetched from gawd knows where by the flashplugin-nonfree package,
      People who use firefox or linux will tolerate a little configuration pain, even if the codec has to come from a warez server in Russia.

      I personally wish we didn't all walk into yet another propitiatory format though, because it's just history repeating itself.

    11. Re:Adobe Flash will die by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?

      755 corporations have licensed H.264. AVC/H.264 Licensees It's a damned impressive list. Scrolling through it is like watching a freight train build up speed and momentum.

      While Firefox is beginning to look more and more like the heroine tied to the railroad tracks around the next bend.

      91% of Mozilla's funding comes from Google. Could open source abandon the Google train? Now would be a really, really good time to put some of that money to good use. Cut a deal.

      Because I don't think Rin-Tin-Tin is coming to the rescue.

    12. Re:Adobe Flash will die by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft: H.264 for IE (and they are already licensing it in Windows 7). Will not support Theora.

      I haven't seen any official announcements on this yet. That said, the most likely approach IE will take is to just use DirectShow, which means that it'll use whatever codecs are installed on the system - H.264 is in Win7, yes, but you can always install Theora codecs.

      Google: H.264 for Chrome (but not for the open source version!).

      Isn't it both H.264 and Theora out of the box with Chrome?

      Opera: Theora. Could support H.264, but wants Theora more.

      The upcoming Opera 10.50 (which is the first stable release to come with HTML5 video support) will use GStreamer for codecs on all platforms. Which means that H.264 support can be added by the user if needed.

    13. Re:Adobe Flash will die by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are also various Linux media players with firefox plugins that will happily play h264.

      The idea that Linux would be locked out of h264 is beyond absurd.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:Adobe Flash will die by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's no reason the plugin experience can't be "seamless". This is just mindless fear mongering.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:Adobe Flash will die by node+3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If firefox can be pointed to youtube and videos don't play

      That already happens. Mozilla doesn't use the IE Flash plugin, you have to install it yourself.

      and there is no obvious solution to make them play

      There's no reason, other than political, that Firefox can't show a missing plug-in icon, just like with Flash, that redirects to an h.264 plugin.

    16. Re:Adobe Flash will die by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are also efforts being made to use GStreamer for Firefox. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422540

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    17. Re:Adobe Flash will die by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, but Mozilla accepted it for Fennec only. They don't want it in desktop builds, because it'd let you use the "evil" H.264.

    18. Re:Adobe Flash will die by chromatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only reason Firefox can't have h.264 support is because they are 'making a stand'....

      That stand is, of course, H.264 has patent encumbrances which require royalties. How deep are your pockets?

    19. Re:Adobe Flash will die by icebraining · · Score: 2, Informative

      All the scripting support is included in Firefox. It only doesn't bundle an H.264 codec, and that will obviously be implemented by an extension.

    20. Re:Adobe Flash will die by chromatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm certain that when MPEG LA offers perpetual royalty-free licenses for H.264 under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms that Mozilla will change its policy.

  2. Re:Try streaming live video... by chrisgeleven · · Score: 2, Informative

    Live streaming using H.264 seemed to work just dandy watching the State of the Union address on my iPhone while using the Whitehouse.gov iPhone app. Also seems to work great with MLB At-Bat on the iPhone as well. I watched many baseball games last season streaming live H.264 video to the iPhone.

  3. Re:Try streaming live video... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... to a mobile device, without using Flash. Go on, try it. I'm waiting.

    In that case I imagining the existence of solutions for the iPhone that do just that. France24, YouTube and StreamToMe being three examples. I can concede there is room for improvement, but there are solutions, if the installed customer base is of interest to you.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  4. Re:All about money. by lisany · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hulu sells advertising in their feeds, Apple does not.

    It's all about money indeed.

  5. Re:Silverlight by owlstead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Silverlight does not stream any video to my Linux machine. Of course it should, but somehow it doesn't. Weird isn't it, even though there is this moonlight thingy, the most important internet application somehow does not work right. So Silverlight is basically just working on Windows (and I presume, Windows mobile). Da Silva, I know you are reading, care to comment on that?

  6. Re:Try streaming live video... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Live streaming using H.264 seemed to work just dandy watching the State of the Union address on my iPhone while using the Whitehouse.gov iPhone app. Also seems to work great with MLB At-Bat on the iPhone as well. I watched many baseball games last season streaming live H.264 video to the iPhone.

    But can you do it with a generic app which will connect to any server?

  7. If Apple Really Cared... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them.

    Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  8. ActionScript vs. JavaScript by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?

    ActionScript is ECMAScript with the Flash DOM. JavaScript is ECMAScript with the HTML DOM. One major point of HTML 5 is to make the HTML DOM as rich as that of Flash, in hopes that the next version of a web application will be written in JavaScript instead of ActionScript. YouTube is one of them; if you're running Safari, Chrome, or IE + Chrome Frame, you can switch it from Flash to HTML 5.

    1. Re:ActionScript vs. JavaScript by chill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want an example, just look at ActiveX and IE6. I expect Flash to take the same route. A long, lingering, painful death.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:ActionScript vs. JavaScript by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My first thought was Flash is the reason for the death of ActiveX...

  9. Control freaks by heffrey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why can't they let us decide?!

    1. Re:Control freaks by he-sk · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're on a Mac, try this: http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/

      As a bonus, you can open H.264 streams from Youtube in Quicktime. Free Software, too!

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
  10. Re:All about money. by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This.

    Also, Flash is a programming language. Apple doesnt allow programming languages onto iPods, iPhones, or iPads.

    Flash could replace a large majority of whats on the App Store.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  11. Re:Try streaming live video... by Inf0phreak · · Score: 2, Informative

    This seems pretty true. In theory x264 can encode content with very low latency[1], and delivering MPEG-4 from previously encoded files is pretty easy, but my search-fu can't find any ready made solution for streaming using RTSP that doesn't involve paying through the nose for the software---although hacking something together with x264 seems very doable.

    I don't know about how easy it is with Theora, but it doesn't really matter since it has had no impact on the mobile device market whatsoever.

    [1]: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=249

    --
    ________
    Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
  12. Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind by beakerMeep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a strange comment, you just make larger buttons for a finger to press them. The same way all interfaces work on a mobile platforms.

    --
    meep
  13. Insanely Great Experiences? by seanalltogether · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences" Nothing really creates insanely great mobile experiences, mobile is far more about functionality then experience because it is such a limiting platform. Most of our clients looking for iphone apps are trying to scale down the full experience to a limited set of core functionality that supports a sometimes connected, highly relevant, supplement to the richer web desktop/laptop experiences. As much as people want to say that HTML5 richness can keep up with Flash, I've already tried to start some benchmarks to see where the performance gaps are. http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/HTML5ChartingTest.html http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/FlashChartingTest.html To give some perspective, the iphone renders the HTML5 test at about 0.5 fps.

    1. Re:Insanely Great Experiences? by Jahava · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, flash is an additional layer for the processor to deal with beyond the browser engine itself, lending to extra exchanges of information between browser and flash plugin.

      Um ... no. Just because Flash is invoked from the browser and rendering within the browser's page doesn't mean that Flash is one layer abstracted from the processor. In fact, browsers (at least Firefox and Chrome) run Flash as a separate process (at least on Linux, which is all I have available at the moment). What this means is that Flash runs as a peer process to the browser ... not an embedded runtime. Information exchanges are limited basically to user input (minimal) and graphical output (also pretty minimal relative to Flash's computation and rendering). Flash running within a browser should run roughly as well as Flash running outside of the browser.

      Contrast this to Javascript; Javascript is run within an engine embedded in the browser, which means it shares it resources with the browser process. It is also linked intimately with the contents of the browser page, meaning that there's little purpose to outsource its work to another process when most of its work deals with the data stored in the browser. This is more what you are talking about.

      Flash does its own thing; Javascript and HTML5 operate within a runtime and are abstracted (at least, initially) from the processor. Optimizations made by Chrome's V8 and Firefox's Tracemonkey engines are intended to bring HTML5/Javascript closer in-line to Flash's domain through various optimizations, but Flash still has the advantage. It's nothing special about Flash; rather, Flash just has the privilege of being detached from the browser, whereas HTML5 and Javascript are intimately integrated with it.

  14. Re:Silverlight by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative
    As I understand it, Silverlight video uses three separate components: core, video codecs, and digital restrictions management. Moonlight has reimplemented core, and Microsoft distributes video decoders for use with Moonlight. This leaves DRM unimplemented in Moonlight, and DRM is fundamentally incompatible with free software because there is no way to stop the X server from performing analog-hole-like output redirection.

    Da Silva, I know you are reading

    Are you talking about Miguel de Icaza or someone else?

  15. One big fat reason that gets missed... by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...security.

    Seriously - with all the active exploits out there that use Flash as a way into an operating system, I can very easily see a Flash bug being exploited to bust right through the iPhone's 'walled garden' setup (what with it's default root password and all...)

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  16. Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there something that I'm missing?

    Knowledge of how large companies stagnate. It's all bureaucratic BS.

    I'm sure there's a team at Adobe that wants to optimize flash - but they're probably being blocked by the higher ups that refuse to cut backwards compatibility.

    Flash performance is horrible on any computer. Youtube used to be smooth on my old 2.2ghz Athlon XP, but now it barely plays. Even my 3.5ghz Athlon II has occasional stutters.

  17. Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right by beakerMeep · · Score: 2, Funny

    How old is your dual core? A lot of Mac processor are woefully out of date. If you're running a Core 2 Duo from 2006 then I bet just about everything sucks. Also, people used to complain that Flash wasn't taking advantage of multiple cores, now it seems they complain that it does. Good old Slashdot. The Flash hate continues unabated.

    --
    meep
  18. The optimal mobile experience for Apple by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is one where everyone buys their content through Apple's store. That's it.

    It's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered "non optimal". After all, Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be "confused" by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause.

  19. apple likes it lock down and free flash games as b by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    apple likes it lock down and lock in app store and free flash games are bad for that.

  20. Re:You are an idiot but at least youre a happy idi by DavidR1991 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would consider it a feature, especially since 99% of flash content I see is actually advertising (and it's literally plastered over sites. Countless flash adverts loading their own stupid videos etc. Good riddance)

  21. Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 2, Informative

    While I agree with you, that is somewhat Apple's fault. On Windows, Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available. On Mac OS X, it does not. In Flash 10, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported on OS X because Apple does not expose access to the required APIs.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  22. Its the video codec, not the delivery system... by itsdapead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.

    For general "rich internet application" stuff, moving from proprietary Flash to standards-based HTML5 (+DOM/SVG/ECMAScript) should be good news for open source. The problem is not HTML 5 per se but that the only video codec that seems to be gaining widespread support in HTML 5 is the patent-encumbered H.264.

    Newer versions of Flash look like shifting H.264 as the codec for video anyway (albeit with different packaging), so Flash vs. HTML5 is a non-issue on the video front.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  23. You dont get the point by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having old hardware should NOT be an issue when you are hitting a web page.

    And its not just flash that is the issue. The entire mindset you just displayed is the core of the problem.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  24. Re:It's a two-part problem by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

    there is no ARM version of Flash. Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system.

    False:

    However, in the past week we have seen Flash running on the new Nexus One released earlier this week. Additionally, the Droid has now been shown successfully running Flash as well.

    Guess which architecture the Nexus One and Droid run on?

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  25. Flash gfx rendering abt 2 be faster on Mac than PC by naz404 · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to Adobe's Chief Technology Officer, Kevin Lynch, Flash's graphics rendering is about to become even faster on Mac than on PC:

    Now regarding performance, given identical hardware, Flash Player on Windows has historically been faster than the Mac, and it is for the most part the same code running in Flash for each operating system. We have and continue to invest significant effort to make Mac OS optimizations to close this gap, and Apple has been helpful in working with us on this. Vector graphics rendering in Flash Player 10 now runs almost exactly the same in terms of CPU usage across Mac and Windows, which is due to this work. In Flash Player 10.1 we are moving to CoreAnimation, which will further reduce CPU usage and we believe will get us to the point where Mac will be faster than Windows for graphics rendering.

    Video rendering is an area we are focusing more attention on -- for example, today a 480p video on a 1.8 Ghz Mac Mini in Safari uses about 34% of CPU on Mac versus 16% on Windows (running in BootCamp on same hardware). With Flash Player 10.1, we are optimizing video rendering further on the Mac and expect to reduce CPU usage by half, bringing Mac and Windows closer to parity for video.

  26. It's not just Flash, but all virtual machines by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The true reason why Apple won't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they won't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store: it doesn't want software running on these platforms that they haven't specifically approved. Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  27. Re:Adobe Flash will die not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh there's more than video. Please don't say Java can do the rest that Flash does, if you take video away. The strength of a platform has much to do with the strength of its "editors". The Flash editor puts much power into the hands of designers, animators and "not really developers". You just can't do this with the bare bones technologies of HTML5 + this, + that, unless or until the accompanying "editors" for creating media catches up.

  28. Flash solved "can everyone watch my video?" by naz404 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Regarding the HTML5 vs Flash video debacle, Radley Marx says it best on his blog post "Five Myths of HTML5 (vs. Adobe Flash)":

    The problem solved by Flash video wasnt can I show a video? Instead, Flash solved can everyone watch my video? HTML5 video doesnt provide this solution; it just adds another approach to the incompatibility pile.

    HTML5 isn't going to change things unless browser vendors agree on a common codec.

    Also, unless HTML5's video spec finds a way to implement DRM on video stream playback (which Flash does), studios and major media content providers who want to protect their content aren't going to bite on "HTML5 video".

    1. Re:Flash solved "can everyone watch my video?" by naz404 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I read somewhere that Google isn't not going to use Ogg Theora on YouYube because it isn't as efficient as H.264 and would eat up too much storage space on their datacenters. A user comment at Mozillazine blog post "Video, Freedom And Mozilla" gives a few good points:

      TK: I think that the fact that Google only enabled h.264 HTML5 video on youtube has more to do with the fact that all their videos were already encoded in that format (at 3 different resolutions), for iPhone and Android support. Therefore, it was relatively easy to just turn on the switch for beta HTML5 embedding.

      Transcoding all those videos to Ogg Theora (with multiple copies for SD, HQ and HD) would require a major computing effort and storage space availability, that, sadly, just isnt worth it at this point. Remember, it took MONTHS in 2007 for youtube to transcode all of their h.263 FLV videos to h.264 mp4's for iPhone support. And that was before Youtube added 720p and 1080p HD video support. They'd literally have to double their datacenters' storage space!!

    2. Re:Flash solved "can everyone watch my video?" by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, HTML5 is a paper tiger. They'll just add a codec= field to the video tag a call it day. Some browsers will support some codecs and others will support other codecs. End users will be baffled from the start and everyone will stick with Flash.

    3. Re:Flash solved "can everyone watch my video?" by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 2, Informative

      99/100 people can watch your video if you publish in Flash 9. The other 1 in 100 is probably your headless file server stuffed in the closet for the past 10 years.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
  29. Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right by Pius+II. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With all due respect, that's bullshit. VLC decodes Youtube's streams (saved to disk) at 13% CPU. Flash takes 90%. I don't have a graphics chip that could decode H264 in hardware (apart from being programmable thru OpenCL, to which Adobe has all access in the world). Apple not exposing any APIs (to what?) is a red herring. To me this looks like slowness in the Flash interpreter, a shoddy video codec they implemented, and pure lazyness.

  30. Flash + H.264 by naz404 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, Flash Player has supported the playback of H.264 since 2007 and Flash Player is one of the biggest reasons why a lot of videos have now been encoded to H.264 on the web (H.264 used to be mostly only used for Blu-ray, not so much web videos).

    A lot of people are confused about FLV. FLV is not a codec, it's a container. The video inside is usually encoded in Sorensen Spark, On2 VP6 or H.264.

  31. Because that's how Apple works by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They have long been a "We know what's best for you," company. They decide what experiences they want to offer the user, and the user has very little choice in the matter. They tell you what you want, you just have to go along with it. If you don't like it, you go elsewhere.

    That is one of the primary reasons I don't use Apple products. They don't offer what I want, and don't offer the ability to become what I want. So, I take my cash elsewhere.

  32. Flash Player video performance vs. VLC by naz404 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Actually, Flash is doing *much more* than a stand-alone video player, that's why a stand-alone video player will eat less resources.

    Mike Melanson, the lead engineer of the Linux Flash Player team explains the technical challenges in his latest blog post, Solving Different Problems:

    The Flash Player has to do a little bit more. In addition to decoding the data, it has to convert YUV data to the RGB colorspace and combine the image with other Flash elements. Then it has to cooperate with another application (web browser) to present the video to the user.

    So the dedicated media player solves a problem: Generally, it plays linear media files from start to finish while allowing user interaction in the form of random seeking along the timeline. That's the most basic, trained monkey-type of labor in video playback. At most, the player might handle DVD menus.

    Flash Player solves a different problem: It plays linear media files from start to finish while combining the video with a wide array of graphical and interactive elements (buttons, bitmaps, vector graphics, filters), as well as providing network, webcam, and microphone facilities, all programmable via a full-featured scripting language, and all easily accessible via a web browser using a plugin that most of the browsing population already has installed.

    You seem to forget that video is not the only thing people use Flash for.

  33. Re:Adobe Flash will die not by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who makes a site completely out of Flash should be _shot_. Repeatedly. In the face and crotch. If I'm using flashblock, I should still be able to see more than a site's copyright notification. Using flash to design a site beyond video is nothing more than ostentatiousness. First you use a little flash for an animated menu. Then you do a little more for a slideshow on the front page. Soon you're serving *all* your content that way, your site takes 30-45 seconds or MORE to load on a broadband connection, and there's a 10 second delay to navigate to a new area on the site. I expect that shit on dial-up, not a 3mbps or more connection. If you can't make a good site without Flash, fucking hire a professional or STAY OFF THE NET.

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  34. Re:All about money. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting how Hulu (and others) provide free flash videos while the iTunes store provides videos for sale.

    Hulu has already stated they're going to start charging in 2010.

    There's no such thing as a free lunch.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  35. Re:Try streaming live video... by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And this is where you fail.

    NO ONE GIVES A SHIT as long as what they want works for them.

    People don't care about the technical way things do or don't work, they care that they can click/touch a button and watch a damn video. They could give a shit about open, they want 'works' first.

    But to answer your question, yes, the way it works on the iPhone with video is an xml file on a web server describing what the URL is to the various available streams and describing the properties of those streams so the device can auto select.

    Its all very well documented and easy to understand. The iPhone (and probably OS X though I didn't look into it) has an advantage in that it has a nice library that only needs to see the xml file and it'll do the rest for you. You'd need to reimplement that library else where, but its a fairly trivial XML file on the server to read to get at the rest of the streams.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  36. Re:Apple hasn't been cooperating 2 imprv Flash on by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So let me get this straight ...

    Apple needs to help Adobe, a large powerful software company, fix its flash player for OS X ... even though countless other 3rd party apps run fine in OS X and are more than happy to play video with practically no CPU usage at all?

    I don't think you actually understand the difference between political posturing and bullshit, and the realities of writing software.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  37. This is all bull****.... by Assmasher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's only one reason why there's no Flash or Java on the iPhone - because you wouldn't be forced through the app store if they had either of them (unless they crippled them extensively like they were thinking about with Flash until people started pointing out - "uh, if the flash experience is the problem, why will you let the flash experience run on the iPhone only we still have to go through the app store?" - LOL ) and you wouldn't need Apple's development machines and environment to write software for it. If they could somehow get away with not implementing HTML5 (which they can't) you could rest assured it wouldn't be on the iPhone/iPad/iWhatever either.

    I can't believe the number of people who lap up this Apple drivel - flash experience is poor? LOL, I wonder how it managed to get such huge market penetration and basically pervade every aspect and corner of the web - oh, I guess because it's crap, right Apple?

    --
    Loading...
  38. For anyone that missed it... by djupedal · · Score: 4, Informative
  39. It did, they have by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Flash solved can everyone watch my video?

    That is totally true. And much like Apple solved the "have to have DRM around online music sales" by being the only place to sell music (forcing studios to drop DRM in order to control price), Flash has thankfully gotten us to the point where everyone can watch video, encoded in h.264 (that's what the online flash video is almost all encoded in these days).

    Flash made a great scaffolding, but it is time to drop that scaffolding and use a solution that is more performant and truly cross platform - h.264. And why is it more cross-platform? Because more chips that decode it in hardware mean more devices that can play that format than any format that would need a powerful CPU for decoding. The fact is it can simply run on way more platforms.

    HTML5 isn't going to change things unless browser vendors agree on a common codec.

    They have, it's h.264. That is all major browser vendors but one - Mozilla. While it's nice they are trying to take a stand and I have to admire them for that, the reality is Chrome will take away ALL of Mozilla's userbase in short order unless they go with the flow on this issue.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  40. Re:Flash gfx rendering abt 2 be faster on Mac than by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's all fine and dandy but all of the Safari crashs I've had in the past 2 years have been flash plug in related.

    Secondly, watching a YouTube video at 480p on my 2.5GHz Core2 Duo takes ~35% of the CPU time available. Watching the same video using the HTML5 version, ~3% of the CPU time available. Even if they did drop it down to 16%, that is still a lot to make vertical mobile Hardware/Software vendors cringe at the power consumption.

    Flash is cool because it has a large enough install base at this point you can say it is a compatible way to display rich media in a web page that displays on 99% of the computers in the US. I can't think of any other good things about flash, even if they fix the horrible CPU usage.