Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

3D CSS Effects in Snow Leopard Safari, And More on Future of Video and Flash?

tekcor said:
It's not optimized at all either. I was realizing that while browsing the web on my battery that all these damn Flash-based ads are killing my battery. Why does this stupid 468x60 ad need so much of my processing power!? It's because the Flash developers are completely inept at making Flash hardware-friendly.
Click to expand...

Installing a good adblock program for firefox or safari will take care of that, or flashblock for firefox, or by turning off flash alltogether. I haven't seen a flash based ad in years.

I'm hoping that the future for online video will be HTML5 and free and open codecs, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
PJR said:
So this might be a really dumb comment, but are we looking at this from an application viewpoint, or a capability one?

Because as far as I can tell, this is an application called CoolIris that is already available and works quite well on Macs.

http://www.cooliris.com/

If it is a "new" application then Apple really ripped somebody off...
Click to expand...

Looks a lot like CoolIris to me. I never search for Google images without it. :p
 
Just an FYI.

I tried it on my 2.4 GHz WhiteBook with 4 GB of RAM with the latest webkit nightly build and the Quartz Debug Frame Meter reported that I was getting around 55-60 fps while moving about. It seemed much choppier than that though, especially while prompting it to move around.
 
str1f3 said:
Everyone knows who's going to win but the question is how long will it take?
Click to expand...

As I said, there's no merit in rehashing that argument, so I'm not going to do so. All I can say is that if you really think "one side is going to win," (and by proxy, one side should win) then you're missing the point and you didn't actually read the mailing-list post I linked. Falling back to formats in HTML5 <video> is a fairly trivial task.

Code: 
<video>
	<source src="video.mp4" type="video/mp4" />
	<source src="video.ogv" type="video/ogg" />
</video>

And the example I just linked to in this post allows you to fallback to Flash for browsers such as IE8 that don't support <video>. This argument has more parallel to a theoretical argument over having the HTML specification define a standard format such as png, gif, or jpeg, for <img>, which it does not.
 
str1f3 said:
That being said, H.264 will move forward not matter what Mozilla or Opera says. There is too much hardware that supports it and Ogg Theora is not as good.
Click to expand...

H.264 might have more hardware support but Safari and Chrome's market share on the desktop is tiny. According to Net Applications, if you added Chrome and Safari's market share and multiplied by 4, Firefox would still have a bigger share of users.

Now if IE were to support H.264 (not for another 3-4 years if their previous record is anything to go by), Mozilla would probably have to concede defeat and find some way of supporting H.264 that fits in with their ethos. But it's doubtful anything will happen before then, even when you factor in the iPhone's popularity on the mobile side.

Personally I think Google is taking the right approach here - support both and let content creators decide what they want to use.
 
MacRumors said:
As a result, Flash will likely remain the dominant format for online video for the time being.
Click to expand...

Why should it be any other way? With all of the major video and news sites using Flash for their videos, isn't this a little like saying, "As a result, steering wheels will likely remain the dominant method for steering a car for the time being." I guarantee that the vast majority of people watching video on the internet don't know and DON'T CARE what format their videos are in. The current format works for them and they see no reason to change it. Even if a specific standard is adopted, honestly, what's the likelyhood of EVERY website with a vast collection of Flash videos putting in the time and money necessary to convert their videos to the new format?

Sorry, the world has spoken, and Flash is the prefered format for online video. And no amount of, "But...but...what about BATTERY LIFE?!" will change that.
 
str1f3 said:
It's not that simple. The MPEG group uses that money to pay for research and personnel. This isn't a company like Microsoft. It consists of industries, universities, and research institutions.
Click to expand...

I understand, but there are some mega-corporations that are part of the group who should have the resources to float the R&D with the return being that their standard wins.
 
Shookster said:
H.264 might have more hardware support but Safari and Chrome's market share on the desktop is tiny. According to Net Applications, if you added Chrome and Safari's market share and multiplied by 4, Firefox would still have a bigger share of users.

Now if IE were to support H.264 (not for another 3-4 years if their previous record is anything to go by), Mozilla would probably have to concede defeat and find some way of supporting H.264 that fits in with their ethos. But it's doubtful anything will happen before then, even when you factor in the iPhone's popularity on the mobile side.

Personally I think Google is taking the right approach here - support both and let content creators decide what they want to use.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked there was one manufacturer willing to support Theora. Webkit's share in the desktop is small but so is every share compared to IE. Webkit, though, is dominant on mobile phones where Firefox has 0% marketshare and the significant part of Opera's mobile browser share is Opera Lite which is not even really a browser.
 
ewoods said:
Why should it be any other way? With all of the major video and news sites using Flash for their videos, isn't this a little like saying, "As a result, steering wheels will likely remain the dominant method for steering a car for the time being." I guarantee that the vast majority of people watching video on the internet don't know and DON'T CARE what format their videos are in. The current format works for them and they see no reason to change it. Even if a specific standard is adopted, honestly, what's the likelyhood of EVERY website with a vast collection of Flash videos putting in the time and money necessary to convert their videos to the new format?

Sorry, the world has spoken, and Flash is the prefered format for online video. And no amount of, "But...but...what about BATTERY LIFE?!" will change that.
Click to expand...

That is like saying Windows is the preferred OS and the public has spoken. Well the reality is that there was no choice. People have just grown up with manufacturers and consumers being LOCKED IN to it. There was never a true choice let alone the knowledge for people to make an educated decision! :rolleyes:
 
Morky said:
I understand, but there are some mega-corporations that are part of the group who should have the resources to float the R&D with the return being that their standard wins.
Click to expand...

If that logic was applied everywhere, they would be broke. The researchers do have to get paid for their work. I'm fine with the licensing fee as long as it's reasonable.
 
Mmm, isn't CoolIris 100% browser side (translates any "photo site" into its gallery) while this demo is a site controlled layout (ie, the CSS/JSS you get off a site?)
 
PJR said:
So this might be a really dumb comment, but are we looking at this from an application viewpoint, or a capability one?

Because as far as I can tell, this is an application called CoolIris that is already available and works quite well on Macs.

http://www.cooliris.com/

If it is a "new" application then Apple really ripped somebody off...
Click to expand...

This is the same thing that i was thinking. I used cooliris duing the middle of the last school year. So this is nothing really new
 
ewoods said:
Why should it be any other way? With all of the major video and news sites using Flash for their videos, isn't this a little like saying, "As a result, steering wheels will likely remain the dominant method for steering a car for the time being." I guarantee that the vast majority of people watching video on the internet don't know and DON'T CARE what format their videos are in. The current format works for them and they see no reason to change it. Even if a specific standard is adopted, honestly, what's the likelyhood of EVERY website with a vast collection of Flash videos putting in the time and money necessary to convert their videos to the new format?

Sorry, the world has spoken, and Flash is the prefered format for online video. And no amount of, "But...but...what about BATTERY LIFE?!" will change that.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous statement. Do you work for Adobe? You're acting like it's so incredibly difficult when YouTube did it for all their videos in a matter of months.

And yes, believe it or not battery life is incredibly important to computers and mobile phones. Yes it is important that processors don't choke on Flash.

The likelihood is very high that it will supported. Both Apple and YouTube support it which is a huge chunk of video viewing. Dailymotion is moving away from it. Vimeo allows multiple file types. Hulu is said to be coming with an iPhone app.
 
Anyone know where I can get that wallpaper with two stick figures looking at the hourglass?
 
John.B said:
...
Personally, I'm glad that Flash isn't on my iPhone, it saves me from having to figure out how to run a Flash block plug-in on Mobile Safari like I have to for Safari and Firefox.
Click to expand...

No offense, but these are the same type of useless comments, that were thrown around by the faithful before the iPhone supported cut&paste ("I don't need it/I don't use it....")

Flash IS ubiquitous, and not just for video. It has a virtually 100% adoption rate around the world, which is not something that can be said of Safari.

Regardless of what a few weird nerds think about Flash, the rest of the world is using it, and enjoying it.

EVERY other major platform supports, or will support Flash:

"... Both the Windows Mobile and Android platforms also announced they'll support Flash (along with Symbian and Palm's new webOS) in 2010...."

As I said, I can just see an Android ad, showing off a great looking Flash site on the new Hero, and a nerdy Apple fanboy looking at an blank screen on their iPhone....

THE IPHONE NEEDS FLASH!
 
spencers said:
Looks like a straight rip of CoolIris!
Click to expand...

Read before posting.

Why should it be any other way? With all of the major video and news sites using Flash for their videos, isn't this a little like saying, "As a result, steering wheels will likely remain the dominant method for steering a car for the time being." I guarantee that the vast majority of people watching video on the internet don't know and DON'T CARE what format their videos are in. The current format works for them and they see no reason to change it. Even if a specific standard is adopted, honestly, what's the likelyhood of EVERY website with a vast collection of Flash videos putting in the time and money necessary to convert their videos to the new format?

Sorry, the world has spoken, and Flash is the prefered format for online video. And no amount of, "But...but...what about BATTERY LIFE?!" will change that.
Click to expand...

If it aint broke, done fix it.

Well, in this case. Flash is broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back