Need to find out a fraction of a percentage?
There's an app for that!
(unfortunately it's written with Adobe Crash©)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe CEO Responds to Steve Jobs' 'Thoughts on Flash'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Need to find out a fraction of a percentage?
There's an app for that!
(unfortunately it's written with Adobe Crash©)
Here's some interesting info from the following article.. (link down below)
Some of the highlights of Ozer's findings are below, broken up into both Mac and Windows test results.
Mac Tests
With Safari, HTML5 was the most efficient and consumed less CPU than Flash using only 12.39% CPU. With Flash 10.0, CPU utilization was at 37.41% and with Flash 10.1, it dropped to 32.07%
With Google Chrome, Flash and HTML5 were both equally inefficient (both are around 50%)
With Firefox, Flash was only slightly less efficient than in Safari, but better than in Chrome
Windows Tests
Safari wouldn't play HTML5 videos, so there was no way to test that. However, Flash 10.0 used 23.22% CPU but Flash 10.1 only used 7.43% CPU
Google Chrome was more efficient on Windows than Mac. Playback with Flash Player 10.0 was about 24% more efficient than HTML5, while Flash Player 10.1 was 58% more efficient than HTML5.
On Firefox, Flash 10.1 dropped CPU utilization to 6% from 22% in Flash 10.0
In IE8, Flash 10.0 used 22.41% CPU and Flash 10.1 used 14.62% CPU
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_html5_really_beat_flash_surprising_results_of_new_tests.php
Some of the highlights of Ozer's findings are below, broken up into both Mac and Windows test results.
Mac Tests
With Safari, HTML5 was the most efficient and consumed less CPU than Flash using only 12.39% CPU. With Flash 10.0, CPU utilization was at 37.41% and with Flash 10.1, it dropped to 32.07%
With Google Chrome, Flash and HTML5 were both equally inefficient (both are around 50%)
With Firefox, Flash was only slightly less efficient than in Safari, but better than in Chrome
Windows Tests
Safari wouldn't play HTML5 videos, so there was no way to test that. However, Flash 10.0 used 23.22% CPU but Flash 10.1 only used 7.43% CPU
Google Chrome was more efficient on Windows than Mac. Playback with Flash Player 10.0 was about 24% more efficient than HTML5, while Flash Player 10.1 was 58% more efficient than HTML5.
On Firefox, Flash 10.1 dropped CPU utilization to 6% from 22% in Flash 10.0
In IE8, Flash 10.0 used 22.41% CPU and Flash 10.1 used 14.62% CPU
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_html5_really_beat_flash_surprising_results_of_new_tests.php
Good idea! Can this be done with a jailbroken iPhone? Then we do not need to wait for Apple or Adobe for this.
The App Store is more closed and controlled for typically better user experiences.
Webkit and HTML5, supported by the iPad and iPhone are far more open.
Apple is playing both sides, and Adobe is stuck in no-mans-land in the middle.
Far less than would happen to Adobe's marketshare!
Both are essentially closed
Should be written
- Flash (closed) + Internet (open)
- Cocoa (open) + App Store (closed)
It's a question of development and deployment. Neither are comparing apples to apples here (pardon the pun), and both systems as a whole are really closed in the end.
And, in the end apple will win. As a graphic designer I've found more and more value in apple products and less and less value in adobe's "upgrades." It wouldn't take much to connect all of apple's pro apps (final cut studio + aperture + iweb "pro"). I'd buy it for sure.
Should be written
- Flash (closed) + Internet (open)
- Cocoa (open) + App Store (closed)
It's a question of development and deployment. Neither are comparing apples to apples here (pardon the pun), and both systems as a whole are really closed in the end.
And, in the end apple will win. As a graphic designer I've found more and more value in apple products and less and less value in adobe's "upgrades." It wouldn't take much to connect all of apple's pro apps (final cut studio + aperture + iweb "pro"). I'd buy it for sure.
Flash makes my battery life fromto
And i'm using Adobe's newest 10.1 RC.
However, running Flash on Windows doesn't make my battery life drop at all.
Explain that Adobe. And no, I don't want to buy a new computer.
I agree. ADOBE **** and R-E-W-R-I-T-E.
You claim that it's Apples fault, yet you are too lazy to do a complete rewrite to utilize OSX.
SHAME on you.
Thanks for CS5 though. : )
With Click2Flash I see 100% of the Flash videos that I click to play, and none of the ads, banners, and otherwise annoying garbage that makes up 80+% of the Flash web content and slows down the rendering of a page.
Quite often I would like Adobe to finally fix the problems with flash .... but these issues have been going on for years.
Based on the steve / adobe spat ..... I think steve outlined the problem and gave an accurate situation of the problem. Adobes response didnt really address any of apples claims and tried to deflect the statements and look at other issues non relevant to the apple statement.
Either way, I really hope that HTML5 develops quicker and offers a open source standard instead so we are not held to ransom by any company.
Based on the steve / adobe spat ..... I think steve outlined the problem and gave an accurate situation of the problem. Adobes response didnt really address any of apples claims and tried to deflect the statements and look at other issues non relevant to the apple statement.
Either way, I really hope that HTML5 develops quicker and offers a open source standard instead so we are not held to ransom by any company.
Until someone from Adobe can present a rebuttal as well thought out, logical and understandable and Steve's original memo, they will loose this battle. Steve Jobs has turned the tables on Adobe's media machine this time.
Mr. Nayaran will need to do a lot more than just deny and try to replace blame everywhere but at Adobe's door if he wants to counter Steve's arguments this time. I am looking forward to reading the entire interview when the WSJ publishes it.
If he fails in rebutting Steve, it will be interesting to see what happens to Adobe stock this afternoon and tomorrow. You can bet the only reason Mr. Nayaran is giving an emergency WSJ interview with such haste is the risk of Adobe stock going south immediately. This is essentially a perfect example of "damage control" at its finest.
Mr. Nayaran will need to do a lot more than just deny and try to replace blame everywhere but at Adobe's door if he wants to counter Steve's arguments this time. I am looking forward to reading the entire interview when the WSJ publishes it.
If he fails in rebutting Steve, it will be interesting to see what happens to Adobe stock this afternoon and tomorrow. You can bet the only reason Mr. Nayaran is giving an emergency WSJ interview with such haste is the risk of Adobe stock going south immediately. This is essentially a perfect example of "damage control" at its finest.
Just a thought from a different point of view:
At last check, AAPL's stock price is up 2.75% and ADBE is down 1.66%
I think that's a telling indicator of who the public agrees with at the moment.
Side note: the only thing Adobe as done to Flash since they bought it from Macromedia many moons ago is to make it more bloated and slower than it even was then. It was crap then and it's crap now. I have always dreaded when a client asks for Flash content on their sites and I have always advised against it.
At last check, AAPL's stock price is up 2.75% and ADBE is down 1.66%
I think that's a telling indicator of who the public agrees with at the moment.
Side note: the only thing Adobe as done to Flash since they bought it from Macromedia many moons ago is to make it more bloated and slower than it even was then. It was crap then and it's crap now. I have always dreaded when a client asks for Flash content on their sites and I have always advised against it.
Would it? Surely people use the computer as a tool to do the work, and if Adobe stopped developing for Apple, people would just migrate to Windows? I mean, what'd be the alternative, if you're a Photoshop shop?
OS X is the reason OS X crashes from Flash? This guy is a total joke. I've had my Mac since '08, and the only crashes I've had are because of Flash (and I think Word '08 has crashed a few times (go figure)). Quit complaining that it's not your fault (when it is) and back up your words by improving your product.
Why don't you start creating your sites with HTML5 then? Not trying to be an ass but genuinely curious why you wouldn't explore another option if you are loosing a substantial amount of business?
I love this argument. It's almost as if Apple tries to claim they have an open platform. Can you point me to some links in which they say that? Also, are they trying to create web standards? Please, enlighten me with this argument, because I think it's one of those things that tries to sound smart but actually fails horribly.