Friday, February 19th, 2010

I Can’t Believe It’s Not Flash

Category: Presentation

<p>

Thomas Fuchs gave a presentation titled “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Flash” at WebStock. It is often hard to grasp a presentation from slides, but this one is great fun to flip through.

This one really hits home:

performancehit

We were surprised to see how JavaScript was NOT the bottleneck in Bespin when we first prototyped it.

And, this is Thomas, so you know he is going to be cheeky…. and he doesn’t dissapoint ;)

flashhtml5video

Related Content:

Posted by Dion Almaer at 12:46 am
42 Comments

+++--
3.3 rating from 3 votes

42 Comments »

Comments feed TrackBack URI

First, there is no such thing as HTML 5 video using X amount CPU. There is some codec called via an HTML 5 tag running CPU. So, in the stats mentioned above, it would probably be more appropriate to say:

QuickTime Playing H264 (in Safari): 10%
Flash : 100%

If you ran it in Firefox, then it would be Theora (if the site supported it), and Im not sure what you would get in different versions of IE (maybe Flash?). Anyways, each would have different footprints.

Second, regardless of the above, I am getting nowhere near 10% CPU for “HTML 5″ video on that page. I get 80% in Chrome. I get 25% in Safari. So, wouldn’t it be just as true in that slide that say “HTML5″ video uses 80% CPU?

I guess is what I am asking, is that if HTML5 is inevitably going to kill Flash, then why such a consistent need to misrepresent data around it? Ultimately, that only sets up developers to be let down by HTML5 when it doesn’t live up to all of the (sometimes skewed) promises.

And yes, I work for Adobe, and I am pretty familiar with Flash, but this isnt a comment about which is better HTML5 / Flash, but rather why is this stuff presented in such a blatantly misleading way?

(btw, these are my opinions / questions, and not those of my employer)

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

Comment by mikechambers — February 19, 2010

I have a couple of questions too: Why are you showing those slides in the Flash Player and not something else? And what’s up with that Flash banner over there on the right?

Comment by JasonFincanon — February 19, 2010

Flash has had physics engines and 3d for years. I’m sick of the Flash sucks bandwagon everyone seems to be jumping on. Flash has allowed developers to do some pretty damn cool stuff you could never do using “standards” and it’s going to continue to innovate and allow developers to push the envelope of what’s possible.

Comment by tylerchesley — February 19, 2010

I’m glad to see flash go. I think flash was cool back in the day but it is heavy and it’s the only thing that makes my browser (Safari 4 on Mac) go boom once in a while. But I still think that web today still needs flash for many things because all the cross-browser issues with new HTML & CSS techniques. That’s why I really like JS libraries like jQuery. They make it possible to do easy web development with all the cool stuff but still work cross-browser. And now that CSS3 starts to penetrate the scene we will have a lot of jQuery plugins that use JS only as fallback and if browser supports CSS3, it will be done with CSS.

HTML5, it’s a really cool thing but I won’t be using it to code my pages until 90% of the browser support it. It’s just not worth the trouble. HTML5 video is the only thing that I’ll start to use as soon as possible. Flash player will be only the fallback.

Comment by Johnnyda — February 19, 2010

For me the Sublime Video demo on Chrome 4.0 ran for 2 seconds at 9% CPU and then froze. I finally got it to work (at 60% CPU) but it still kept freezing periodically …

I’m happy to build with Flash or Javascript or HTML5 — whichever does the job better for the client — but the argument that HTML5 will replace Flash anytime in the near future makes no sense. First you have a standard that is supported equally across browsers and then you have to have the vast majority of users install the supported browser. How long will that take? In the meantime, you can do a lot more rich content without using Flash — and you should when you can — but don’t push your clients to use HTML5 until they can be sure the majority of their users can see it.

Comment by bkurzius — February 19, 2010

@mikechambers
I am sure Thomas Fuchs have a reason to those numbers. And for you to attack inaccuracy is pretty dangerous. After all, you work in the company that claimed “Flex was Ajax” a couple of years back. Even Jesse James used to hold speeches where he had to explain what Ajax was due to lies from e.g. your employer. So it’s a little bit difficult for someone like you to attack others in the real open community about inaccuracies. FYI…
.
Thomas Hansen, working with Ajax at http://ra-ajax.org – and yes have a deep investment in “anti-ActiveX2.0 technologies”…

Comment by ThomasHansen — February 19, 2010

What kind of hardware / software are you sing to get Flash take 100% CPU with video.
Altough I can here a lot of people complaining about this issue, I’ve never seen, used or owned any machine that suffered from this symptom. I’m starting to think this is just some FUD campaign.

Comment by ywg — February 19, 2010

I think the goal of this presentation is to highlight the efforts going on to improve native browsing technology. Ofcourse this technology isn’t ready for prime time. WebGL isn’t even in any shipping browser. Adobe guys, you don’t have to feel offended. “I can’t believe it’s not flash” is basically a backhanded compliment. It’s saying “everyone thinks only flash can do this stuff, but we’re working hard to allow you to do it without needing flash”.
.
I think this competition between html5 and flash is a good thing. It’s going to light a fire under flash to fix the problems (stability, hardware-acceleration). And flash will set a high mark of what browsers need to be able to do natively, so we know the html5 effort is going to _have to_ deliver good results.

Comment by Joeri — February 19, 2010

@ThomasHansen

I dont believe I am “attacking” anyone, and if the tone of my comments suggest otherwise, then I apologize.

If you see something inaccurate with my questions or comments, then please feel free to highlight them.

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

Comment by mikechambers — February 19, 2010

@randon I have not seen one single Flash video player whose scrub bar actually really worked. The sublime player does when using the lastes Safari Nightly.

Comment by 0xfeedface — February 19, 2010

@ThomasHansen.

Mike shouldn’t have to defend homself on this. His tests were consistent with at least two other posters to this thread. The HTML5 video was buggy for us (using the supported browsers) and when it DID run it ran at a much higher CPU than was posted in his slides. And to question Mike because of something someone else said at Adobe or Macromedia is compleley unfair. Let just stick with the point he’s making — it is just as true to say that it ran at 80% CPU than 10% CPU. Statistics can be misleading — and unfair comparisons between HTML5 and Flash only does a disservice to developers and their clients. Let’s just stop the flaming and build some cool apps — using whatever technology you like :-)

Comment by bkurzius — February 19, 2010

Flash + Linux = fail. And it has always been like that. It crash my browser (firefox) all the time. On Chrome (Linux as well) it works pretty good. I kinda hate flash on linux. Altough flash has permits to push foward web experience for sure :)

Comment by Spir — February 19, 2010

A few months ago I worked on a site where we had a full-window image slideshow with images circa 1024×800 big. Tried a few different animation frameworks, also rolled my own, but never got it to go smoothly. Tried reducing the image size yet some browsers (Firefox, mostly) was still as slow. My finding was that the rendering engine is the bottleneck, just like the slide above says.
.
So, we ended up using a Flash solution and it worked (not perfect, but better). It’s great that we have speedy JS engines, web workers and HTML5, but if JS/CSS/HTML is to compete with Flash, the browsers need to get really fast at shoveling pixels.

Comment by joolss — February 19, 2010

This reminds me of the time Silverlight first emerged. It too was to be the next ‘Flash killer’, yet rather than highlight its strength it was the so-called flaws in Flash that were put under the spotlight. And the HTML5 fancrowd is doing exactly the same: rather than highlight HTML5s strenghts, of which there are many, they have to resort to talking down on what they perceive to be some sort of ‘competitor’.

You don’t get this kind of talk from the Flash community – sure, we defend our corner but we don’t feel the need to go ‘hey, check out how great Flash is, I can prove it by showing how much HTML5 sucks’. Doesn’t happen. Instead you see Flash applications being shown for what they are, without the petty comparisons that anyone could copy and produce the opposite result if wanted.

There’s no single Flash developer out there who is opposed to HTML5, in fact most of us are web developers with heavy skills in other areas, be in PHP, AJAX, Ruby, you name it. We all want to see HTML5 succeed. But the crusade that the HTML5 camp is running is starting to reflect badly on their community, and it reminds me of Linux-type fundamentalism. Not pretty.

Comment by stoem — February 19, 2010

To choose between flash and html5 for video is fairly simple to me :
flash :
-> a movie file (flv for the simple way)
-> played in a plugin
-> inside a browser

html5 :
-> a movie file (almost anything i want)
-> inside a browser

The last one makes things quite more simple. As i often work with videos i’m glad this kind of processes get simplified.

Comment by contreforme — February 19, 2010

I have tested the Sublime player out on several browsers (OSX, dual-core 2.66Ghz), on those it managed to run on, I did not get anywhere near 10%, far from it, I don’t even know how that was possible. And this is a small video, nowhere near the sort of quality and size you see on iPlayer and other quality video sites where HD is offered. Here’s a 720P demo, running at just 500kbps:

http://www.flashvideofactory.com/test/DEMO720_Heima_H264_500K.html.

This is not hardware accelerated, so yes it uses a chunk of CPU right now, if you go fullscreen you get some hardware boost from the h/w scaling support in FP9+. If you like me are a Mac user, you should know that things are about to get a lot faster in FP10.1+ (Windows perf is still much better):

http://www.kaourantin.net/2010/02/core-animation.html

Chrome played the Sublime video OK given its small size, but Safari was more choppy than I would find acceptable if say YouTube were to switch to it (if captioning, YouTube’s “progressive streaming” technique and other features were used/possible).

Comment by richardleggett — February 19, 2010

@contreforme

As the sublime player (which is pretty impressive) shows, it is not that simple. You will need to encode your video for a number of different codecs, and still will need to rely on Flash video (as the sublime player does) for a fallback.

This is because browser vendors / html 5 standards creators have not been able to settle on a codec. Chrome and Safari use H.264, Firefox uses Theora (im not sure what IE or Opera support).

You can find some more background on this at:

http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

Comment by mikechambers — February 19, 2010

@mikechambers
The fact that the slide leaves out a bunch of details is not “blatantly misleading”, but simplifying things to make an effective presentation. Yes, it’s more complex than just “10%” vs. “100+%”, but cluttering up a slide with tons of detailed benchmarks on the performance of HTML5 video would have just distracted listeners from simply making the point that HTML5 video uses less CPU than Flash video. Thomas probably provided more context for his comparison in the talk, and I’m sure everyone understood that there’s more to it, but that doesn’t make the point of this slide invalid or misleading.

However, I’m sure that plenty of exaggerated statements have been thrown around when discussing HTML5 video due to developers’ frustration with Flash. The CPU usage problem is one of the most noticeable since despite Adobe having years to fix it, Flash video still taxes the CPU of even the latest machines. I see ~80-90% CPU usage playing a 720p YouTube video on my new 13″ MBP. Using the Safari extension ClickToFlash to swap the player for HTML5 video, CPU usage drops to ~10%. I can’t deny that Flash had a huge impact on making online video successful, but I agree that it’s time to move on. While HTML5 video may not be perfect, I think it’s important for the future of the web to break the dependency on a closed product and move to an open standard that can evolve with the web.

Comment by mgood — February 19, 2010

Yeah, detailed benchmarks would have meant we could reproduce his ‘tests’…
Let’s compare like for like at least. The codec makes the main difference in any comparisons, as decoding is what hits the CPU. Different codecs, different results.

The Sublime player spiked my iMac’s CPU to over 100%. Maybe it’s due to the fact that it uses a ridiculous bitrate of 3MBit/s and a size of 1280×544, yet then shrinks it down into a tiny display? I mean WTF?

Comment by stoem — February 19, 2010

@mgood


cluttering up a slide with tons of detailed benchmarks on the performance of HTML5 video would have just distracted listeners from simply making the point that HTML5 video uses less CPU than Flash video

Well, again, there is no such thing as HTML5 Video (the is an HTML5 video tag, and browsers support various codecs). In the case above, I am guessing they are playing video back via Safari on Mac (which I believe uses Quicktime). This is hardware accelerated, and will provide very good playback. But that doesnt really have anything to do with HTML5.

However, as shown in the comments, different browsers provided very different results, some of which seem to call into question the main point.

So, if the point is that HW accelerated h.264 video in Safari has better performance than Flash, then, that is definitely true (at least for now).

But, the slide suggests that HTML5 video is a single thing, and that it has better CPU usage than Flash video. Both of those assumptions or assertions are not necessarily correct (the first definitely isnt).

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

Comment by mikechambers — February 19, 2010

IMO, Flash is better go for Games Development and desktop applications, honestly, it just consumes too many resources of navigator….

Comment by darktalker — February 19, 2010

To Mike and the rest here.
I apologize for being inaccurate about my usage of the word “attack”…
.
I’ve got an Acer TravelMate 6293, with Windows 7, which has a pretty awesome spec. I watch a *lot* of movies through Flash at e.g. Google Video and YouTube …
.
Always when watching Flash Videos my computer goes insanely warm. Even if I pause the movie and leaves it for a couple of hours on pause my computer will become insanely warm and eat through batteries at twice the normal speed.
.
Not to mention that when I watch HD videos it’ll sometimes even jump over frames and such due to “no more CPU” problems. Now this is a *fact*…!
.
Flash is for all practical concerns *broken*, and that’s before we start using relevant acronyms such as ActiveX2.0 and so on, so I don’t see how Thomas [Fuchs] could be “criticized” for showing the proofs of such claims here. In fact anything, your developers at adobe [Mike] should be happy about it and use it as a foundation for a “bug report” and concentrate more on fixing it then spending time “criticizing” Thomas Fuchs …

Comment by ThomasHansen — February 19, 2010

@ThomasHansen Have you even watched the HTML5 video linked above?

In Chrome on Windows the performance is fairly appalling IMO. My Core 2 Duo system is showing 65-75% CPU usage when playing that video, with dropped frames. This will easily get your computer “warm”.

Similarly, other “low motion” HD videos delivered using Flash use 35-50% CPU usage on my system without dropped frames. Unfortunately, there is no link to the same video delivered in Flash so a direct comparison isn’t possible in this specific instance.

But in any case, this ridiculous “Flash 100% CPU usage” crap has got to stop. Are people totally oblivious to how video codecs actually work? I thought developers were supposed to be smart…

Comment by JustinCarter — February 19, 2010

I’ve taken 2 screenshots showing the CPU usage of HTML5 and Flash video playback in my 2007 iMac.

Sublimevideo HTML5 “fullwindow” playback:
http://twitpic.com/144la7

Vimeo Flash normal playback:
http://twitpic.com/144lcr

- I took the exact same video at the same resolution (720p) in both cases.
- In the second case, the video isn’t playing fullscreen just because in that mode Flash player doesn’t allow me to do access the menu bar. Also, since Leopard, Safari browser plugins runs sandboxed, so you should count WebKitPluginHost and Safari CPU usage.

In brief, HTML5 fullwindow video playback uses less than 50% CPU than Flash normal size video playback.

Comment by nkm — February 19, 2010

I find this whole thing laughable. He doesn’t include near enough info to determine whether we can reproduce his results and someone even defends this by saying there shouldn’t be clutter. I want the clutter so that we can see the whole truth and not the snapshot he wants to present. At least tell us the platform and browser. Did he give that?
-
Does Flash use more CPU than HTML5 video? Of course it does! I’ve never seen anyone dispute this. But when HTML5 video does all the things Flash does while maintaining backwards comparability with 9 previous versions then we can compare. Besides, as pointed out, HTML5 video doesn’t actually do anything, the video codec in use does.
-
Which leads me to my experience with the sublime player. With Windows7 on dual Xenons I get the 10% number with Chrome after a few tries. It didn’t work on Safari for some reason. With Firefox I got 25-30%. Between the two it would be different codecs, notice the difference that I get? Went to Youtube and loaded up the 720p Buck Bunny video in Flash 10, less than 20% with the occasional peak. I’m guessing people claiming 100% on Flash video is on a Mac which is a whole different debate.
-
@contreforme – I’m sorry but you need to read up on the current state of HTML5 before making such a claim. Right now there is no set video codec for HTML5 so you would have to make at least two copies of your video to support webkit vs gecko. But at least you wouldn’t have to do a third video for Flash fallback, just use the h.264 video you encoded for webkit.
-
@rodoneill – if a scrub bar in a Flash player did not work right for you it most likely the fault of the programmer who coded the player and not Flash, but your mileage may vary
-
Personally, I am a web designer and use the right tool for the job. I just cannot wait until the day I can use when starting my new page. But I’m willing to bet I’ll still be coding Flash projects at the same time. HTML5 will not kill Flash and the Flash haters need to just get over it.
-
And as toem correctly points out, don’t try to sell HTML5 by claiming Flash sucks. Tell me why HTML5 is cool. It’s like the difference between the major Apple ads for OSX and iPhone. The iPhone commercials tell you how cool the iPhone is and why you would want one. The OS X commercials just point out the flaws in Windows instead of telling me how cool OS X is or why I would want it. I would consider getting an iPhone or at least an iPod Touch but I have no desire whatsoever to ever have OS X.

Comment by travisalmand — February 19, 2010

So those of you upset over Fuchs’ presentation have boiled down the argument to, “hey that HTML5 example uses more CPU resources than Thomas claims, I mean its still less than Flash, but his numbers are all wrong.”

Keep shooting the messenger.

I have no problems with Flash, being as I am a Flash developer, but seriously guys get a grip. Flash is a TOOL it’s not the web, and those of you getting your feelings hurt can go play with those in the community still holding onto hope that Director or Hypercard will make a comeback. Go broaden your horizons, learn new tools and techniques to put into your development “bag” and when one tool remains you’ll still have work.

Comment by smfoushee — February 19, 2010

@smfoushee – I also create projects in Flash and personally I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the idea of HTML5 taking over some parts of the web from Flash. In fact, it would make my usual project work as a web designer much easier. My problem is the distortion that takes place in these discussions, on both sides! Plus the added problem of one side complaining when the other points out the distortion. As I stated, I don’t think anyone has ever disputed that using a dedicated decoder for video playback through the video tag uses less CPU cycles than doing the same with Flash. My problem is the constant distortion of how bad Flash supposedly is as compared to things that is not a proper comparison. This type of distortion always leads to fanboys making comments such as “Suck it, Adobe!” which is childish and does not promote the discussion in any way. It seems to me the group that should be getting a grip is the HTML5 fanboys who constantly whine about how much Flash sucks. HTML5 people need to be the ones to broaden their horizons and realize they should be using the best tool for the job, be it HTML5 or Flash. Fanboys, regardless of the reason for their fanboyism, should get a grip and grow up.

Comment by travisalmand — February 19, 2010

Competition is healthy – no need for folks to get hot under the collar.
If developers didn’t have issues with Flash then the anti-Flash bandwagon would never have built up steam. Conversely if Flash weren’t a huge part of our internet culture than folks would not be getting, lets say, over-creative in their pro-HTML5 rhetoric.

Flash will be around for years. HTML5 (in its many forms) will be huge and will hit Flash hard. Its the most excited I’ve been about the web since google suggest.

Comment by AngusC — February 19, 2010

The talk was not about HTML5/Flash video only, actually. I’m pretty sure that both will even out in the end, moving to GPU-assisted rendering and using less CPU than they do now.

What’s more interesting, to me personally, is that with all the “open” technologies discussed by Thomas will be exposed to the developers in several different ways. This means that there _will_ be APIs and Frameworks (actually JS libraries, but hey…) that will be well thought out and fun to use.

Flash took a turn to Retardoland with what they did with ActionScript 3 (in itself okay-ish) and Java-fying the APIs. The whole “Hey, this Java idea of cross platform apps is great — lets sandbox it in a browser!” idea led Flash — and Flex — lose any potential advantages they would have had as a platform. Adobe probably can’t fix all of that quicker than the HTML alternatives can catch up, if not more because they commited to poorly thought out APIs (with ugly ass themes) that they will have to keep supporting now.

Adobe wants Flash to be everything for everyone and that’s hurting it. Instead of a fresh new vision, they just spent shitloads of resources to make a “platform” that relied too much on buzzwords and not enough on value.

Comment by smoofles — February 19, 2010

mike chambers: who cares, it is not 100%. Flash sucks – it’s CPU consuming monster. Nobody loves it. Developers hates it, Users hates it. I hope HTML5 will successfully replace it.

Comment by imakowski — February 19, 2010

I can’t believe it IS still Flash. The slideshow, that is. Why on earth use Flash for a simple slideshow that could have been done in DHTML fifteen years ago? And when will Ajaxian fix this stupid CSS bug? I’m sick of having to dewidthify the middle column every fucking time.

Comment by bugme — February 19, 2010

I ran the sublime player simultaneously in FF6 and Chrome on an iMac 2ith a 2.8GHz processor, and the video and audio ran smoothly, even with FF in full screen mode. Flash has been so useful because there was no good way to do certain things within browsers. Video was (and still is) one of those things. But, soon, browsers will have those capabilities, and a plugin won’t be necessary for them. And if you remove the plugin from between the browser and the video, OBVIOUSLY your going to be using less processing power. Flash has been a great solution to many browser flaws, but I’m looking forward to it disappearing.

Comment by mjuhl — February 19, 2010

@imakowski: i’ve heard of more developers that hate javascript than hate flash, so by your metric, this very site should close up shop. Have you developed a flash app, and can talk from personal experience? I don’t think so. I’ve built a flash app that was impossible to build in anything else except for java (this was before silverlight). Even today, browsers still aren’t powerful enough to support that app natively.

Comment by Joeri — February 19, 2010

@Joeri: The thing with “complicated” apps like that is that most often, the development teams would be better off to just build the app natively, with either .Net or Cocoa or GTK. Limiting “complicated” apps by putting them inside a browser is really not the best solution…

Comment by smoofles — February 20, 2010

@smoofles: this _was_ a windows app, and there was an explicit requirement to make a web version of it. Specifically, it is a CAD app, where the full editor is a windows application, and a reduced functionality web version had to be made to allow broad access to the same underlying visualization tools without having to do a local install.
.
I don’t get why it’s so hard for people to believe that there is stuff you have to use a plugin for, especially when you take development cost into account.

Comment by Joeri — February 20, 2010

Why doesn’t Adobe Open Source the Flash player and assign some people to integrate it into Gecko and WebKit? And submit Flash as a standard format? Wouldn’t this potentially

* solve many of the cpu/crashing issues on those browsers

* better integrate it with the browsers

* potentially get it onto the iPhone

* slow the move away from Flash

Doesn’t Adobe make money from the Flash program, not the player? What are they scared of? What are the drawbacks for them?

Comment by jamienk — February 21, 2010

I was actually at this Webstock presentation, so I can give some context to this. Thomas made it quite clear that these CPU figures where based on Safari on his Mac Book Pro. I believe the video show was actually 1080P, but I could be wrong on that.

His point was that video embedded with the HTML 5 tag already takes advantage of hardware acceleration, where as flash is yet to support it (will it ever able too?).

Much more time was spent discussing the browser render pipeline, webkit transformations, canvas, SVG and WebGL

@mikechambers it is pretty poor form to pick parts for an argument from slides devoid of there original context. Also, I don’t think you where one of the few Adobe employees present.

Comment by Jagged — February 21, 2010

I cannot believe people’s opinions are still mixed about this. On a tech-oriented site at that. We need to stop repeating the same mistakes.

The problem with Flash is pretty simple : it’s proprietary and as such, it is doomed to impeded innovation. Look at Steve Jobs’ comments on it and it’s pretty clear that Flash is nowhere near being lean enough. What we need right now is to collectively push behind free and open technologies so that everyone can hack the code and make it better, faster, stronger.

Props to Thomas for heading in the right direction.

Comment by Veej — February 22, 2010

I don’t work for Adobe, but I would like to defend Flash for its position on the internet. First, no language or platform is perfect and changes over time. Look at the some of the crap tag in HTML ( blink) and you will notice that a good idea yesterday is a stupid idea today. Look at the insults that JavaScript got over the year and even today, that it is not a real language, But without JavaScript, the web is just a bunch of ‘dumb’ static pages. Without IE creating XMLHTTP in IE 5, this AJAX (I hate that term), we do just a buch of total pages refreshes. Microsoft is supposed to be the ‘evil’ empire and Mozilla is ‘pure’. Give me a break, it is M$ which created AJAX and no one else. At least give it its due.

In the same regard, with Flash/Flex since Flash 5, we don’t have the changes that make good video or applications on the web. We have all seen videos using QuickTime, RealPlayer, M$ and Flash and that a video on Youtube loads faster than those other formats. It is that speed which makes for a good users experience. It is the developer’s talent which makes a good web site. Flash didn’t create those dumb skip intro page, it is the silly person who is being paid that creates crap. One needs to be honest that Macromedia first created the best video/animation on the internet and it continues to evolve. It is not perfect and it need to be friendlier to the usage of the CPU. But, I can create a Flex application in combination will HTML/JavaScript which will give faster response than a typical AJAX site. Also, until every browser supports HTML5 in the same regard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML_5) ) then we will have to see what is the best solution in the future. I try not get ‘religious’ about a language unless I’m convinced that its performance is the best. I can see that Adobe in the future will make Flash use less CPU in time because of the market place just like every company. Let us not worship the house of Apple and think it is the perfect company.

Comment by patitdude — February 22, 2010

@Jagged: Yes, Flash 10.1 supports hardware acceleration…
.
Seriously, I don’t know why people think Flash performance should/could be any different to anything the browser can do “natively” (except for Apple holding APIs to ransom, ugh).
.
Re: the Steve Jobs comments – he’s a spoilt little school boy who doesn’t want Flash to hurt his precious app store sales figures, and if Apple keeps on down this path then they will get burnt IMO. It’s all politics and it’s stirring people up for no reason at all. It’s a case of “waahhhh, I don’t wanna”. It’s old, it’s tiresome, and it’s boring.

Comment by JustinCarter — February 22, 2010

does anyone else think this is laughable that people are arguing and getting offended over something that isn’t even standardised yet?

We are still in a world of html4 / css2 and of course IE6. Html5 video will be great in the future. Until then flash is still the best online video solution…

…and of course it will be better than flash. If and when they agree a specification. Anything created specifically for a task will beat a competition which is a good all rounder.

I’m more worried that browsers are implementing html5 technologies differently. This is what standardisation is meant to stop!

Comment by sidonaldson — February 24, 2010

Just sampled a basic animation done in css3 on macheist. Awful, just awful.

locks cpu at 100% for something that wouldn’t raise more than couple percent in flash, and is tacky and completely pointless.

And this is progress? HTML5 religious fanboys are going to spew this sort of crap animation all over the web in a few years time, crashing and locking browsers left right and centre while conveniently forgetting their totem of how ‘flash is used for pointless animations’.

Comment by mikeduguid — February 24, 2010

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.