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 CTO on Flash's Effect on Battery Life, Apple's Negative Campaigning
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem I have with this response from the Adobe CTO is that he brought Apple into the argument. He should of just focused the argument on Arstechnica, and let the issue disappear. Now, by bringing Apple into it his response will get more coverage, and probably comeback to kick him in the a**. I do not think Apple will respond, they have said their piece, but I think more people will conduct test on what the Adobe CTO said, and prove him wrong.
It's true. ClickToFlash is outstanding. Apple should just buy them out and pre-install it.
I chose my words carefully. I said they were TRYING TO TAKE THE ROLE OF... You could be the new kid on the block and try and seize control - or you could be a behemoth.
If you don't understand the politics of what Apple is doing - it's not my job to explain it here. Do some reading.
Actually, Lynch is right.
Currently, HTML5 canvas animations require a lot more CPU power than Flash animations do, no matter on which browser (even on fast Webkit-based ones).
If you don't believe, I recommend to read this: http://www.timo-ernst.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ria-timo-ernst.pdf
Actually, every Flash vs. HTML5 canvas benchmark currently shows that HTML5-based animations require a lot more CPU power than Flash-based ones do.
If you take off your Apple-glasses you should realize that your daily experience with Flash-based animations (which often tend to cause high CPU load) probably influences your attitude towards Flash.
In fact, if all Flash animation content on the web was replaced by HTML5 canvas implementations, the battery drain on notebooks would even be a lot higher than it is now.
In a nutshell: Animations (like Flash-ads) can cause a lot of CPU load while surfing the web. It's in the nature of animations to do so.
Replacing those ads with HTML5 canvas animations would make things only worse.
However, HTML5-based video playback seems to require much less CPU power than Flash-video.
Since most ads rely on animations rather than video playback, this argument does not really apply.
Apple's trick to run their battery-test without Flash returns false results. It's no wonder that battery lifetime goes up without Flash since animations usually cause most CPU load while surfing the web (besides video playback).
If they's done the test correctly, the should've converted all Flash-content to HTML5 and then re-run the test.
Apple is a better company than Adobe. Listen to the better company. They should have more power and be right more of the time.
Flash ads use too much CPU compared to how useless they are. It's not the fault of Flash, but the fault of advertisers.
Adobe is too stubborn and keeps pretending Flash is perfect. It has some issues but they could be fixed with not much effort.
Flash is a great platform for many things that require lots of animation power. Simpler things should be made in HTML5 because even simple things in Flash use high CPU power. Once again, it's the developer who has to make the right choice.
By comparison, if every App on my Mac ran a 3D interface, it would be super slow. Still, it would not be the fault of 3D technology, but the fault of developers using 3D for things that would be fine without it.
Adobe is too stubborn and keeps pretending Flash is perfect. It has some issues but they could be fixed with not much effort.
Flash is a great platform for many things that require lots of animation power. Simpler things should be made in HTML5 because even simple things in Flash use high CPU power. Once again, it's the developer who has to make the right choice.
By comparison, if every App on my Mac ran a 3D interface, it would be super slow. Still, it would not be the fault of 3D technology, but the fault of developers using 3D for things that would be fine without it.
Last edited:
Are you really that unsure of your position that you need to resort to name-calling?
Go back to my original post - I talked about how the use of flash, in the test, resulted in no value added to the consumer, since the consumer doesn't care if his ads blink.
So we are left with the following: for someone just using their computer in the way Ars tested, browsing the web and such, installing flash results in 2 hours less battery life, but does provide the user the ability to see adds with annoying sounds and animations.
Hence the test shows that if you are just surfing, enabling flash reduces your battery life by 2 hours vs. just surfing with an html5 browser. This is a real result for real end users, who don't give a crap that maybe someday html5 ads will become more elaborate and eat more battery life.
Why does everyone keep acting like the battle for Flash is over what video codec is going to deliver entertainment to you?
I hate to say it but Flash is NOT going anywhere, you have a generation of graphic designers/coders trained to use flash script building interactive websites and banner ads. Some may learn javascript to keep up but alot are not keen to switch over anytime soon, especially given javascript being a more complex language better suited for programmers than designers.
I hate to say it but Flash is NOT going anywhere, you have a generation of graphic designers/coders trained to use flash script building interactive websites and banner ads. Some may learn javascript to keep up but alot are not keen to switch over anytime soon, especially given javascript being a more complex language better suited for programmers than designers.
Probably when compared to the HTML-5 export of Flash content using the new tool they developed. They probably produce some really shoddy HTML-5 just like they produce gigantic iOS applications from Flash.
So when Flash dies and HTML5 takes over and the users don't see any improvement in battery life, who will they blame next ?
Witch burning is sooo fun until the villagers start eyeing your wife.
>>Witch burning is sooo fun until the villagers start eyeing your wife.
ha ha so true. But I guess it depends on how you feel about your wife.......
ha ha so true. But I guess it depends on how you feel about your wife.......
Yes, best solution is having Flash installed with a Flash blocker. Wouldn't mind seeing that for iOS-based Safari.
I respect your opinion. And agree to a point. But you have to realize there are plenty of people in this thread who are screaming for the death of Flash and/or saying HTML5 is the "wave of the future." That being said - killing flash isn't the answer per se because when/if flash gets replaced - it will be replaced by something equally as draining on battery life as per the examples given. So yes - TODAY - there would be a difference. But for how long. If advertisers can't use flash - they would resort to HTML5 - and then you have the same problem
So those that want to kill flash aren't "solving" anything in regards to battery life in the long term. I think (I said think) that was the point of the counter-argument.
That's because HTML-5 is using H.264-encoded video which your computer has a hardware-based decoder for (no need to use the CPU). Every iOS device has the same H.264 chip in it. Flash relies on software decoding which of course uses your CPU. Maybe Adobe should develop hardware-accelerated Flash.
So when Flash dies and HTML5 takes over and the users don't see any improvement in battery life, who will they blame next ?
Witch burning is sooo fun until the villagers start eyeing your wife.
Am I wrong in thinking the anti-flash fiasco did not spawn from battery time...?
Sure, this article focused on battery time, but that's not the issue correct?
The issue is most flash based anything doesn't work correctly on most mobile platforms whatsoever.
I think the major issue is the damn thing simply doesn't work, let alone sucks away your battery.
I would rather have my battery life drained on working HTML5 objects rather than disappearing over a ****** animation that also crashed my phone.
IF I had a choice, HTML5 and 1 hour battery life, or Flash and 3 hours battery life I would take HTML5.
Why? Well, its not because I have ANYTHING against flash. Works fine for me most of the time.
HTML5 is going to really change the web over a period of time. I'm a web developer with 10 years experience and the stuff we're now able to do with HTML5 is fantastic. Stuff that is so much better than flash (because you dont rely on special plugins, and the content can be picked up by search engines & RSS/Atom feeds).
If you really think HTML5 exists to replace Flash then you really don't have a clue about how web developers work.
Two VERY different technologies that are implemented in VERY different ways.
Why? Well, its not because I have ANYTHING against flash. Works fine for me most of the time.
HTML5 is going to really change the web over a period of time. I'm a web developer with 10 years experience and the stuff we're now able to do with HTML5 is fantastic. Stuff that is so much better than flash (because you dont rely on special plugins, and the content can be picked up by search engines & RSS/Atom feeds).
If you really think HTML5 exists to replace Flash then you really don't have a clue about how web developers work.
Two VERY different technologies that are implemented in VERY different ways.
No, Adobe is apparently not doing the required work to be able to use hardware-acceleration in Flash on the Mac. From what I understand, OS X apps have to be coded a certain way, use certain mechanisms and libraries to be able to tap into hardware-acceleration. Adobe and other companies are obviously able to do this, because Photoshop on the Mac uses hardware-acceleration. (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404898.html)
So ask yourself: if Adobe can pull it off with Photoshop, why not with Flash?
Probably because Flash would have to be massively rewritten, and Adobe cannot be bothered to do so.
So let us all stop claiming that Apple is actively stopping Adobe from using hardware-acceleration in Flash, because it is just not credible. It is an argument that's being rehashed throughout the internet without almost anyone stopping to think if it actually makes sense.
First public release of Flash: 1996
First public release of JavaScript: 1995
Current Flash plugin size: 31.5 MB
V8 JavaScriptEngine size: 74.7 MB
What was your point again?
HTML is a descriptive language and is static. What you probably want to compare with is JavaScript. And as stated by someone else, it uses JIT just the same.
Flash works on binary objects, JavaScript operates on a string-based DOM structure. Also note that .swf is a binary file, whereas .js is not, thus parsing is necessary in JavaScript. Not even knowing about such tests where the one thing is using more battery than the other, one can already say by these points that the JavaScript-Version has the potential to be distinctively heavier than Flash and even more, much harder to optimize. And this comparison does not even includes the file sizes of the content which need to be downloaded by a user.
Not true. Ad blockers already block images, such as GIF and JPEG, which are equally integrated into browsers.
Apple fanboys are making me pull for flash. Most of the hate is really because Steve doesn't like it because it cuts into Apple's bottom line, just like HTML5 will in the future, but since it's not ready yet, he promotes it to bash Flash. But if HTML5 replaced flash, Steve would hate it just as much, specially if it uses less resources. It's like with USB 3 now, Apple is pro Light Peak, so now there are some who talk about USB 3 in a negative way. I mean why would anyone here just all of a sudden have a problem with USB 3. The normal, non fanboy response would be to would be to support both. USB 3 because of all of all the USB devices out there, and Light Peak for all the cool things that it will be able to do. Just be happy that it's much better than what we have now. As for eSata. I have an eSata port on my laptop, I'm going to get an eSata dock because I hear I can boot from it, and that sounds cool, have an extra OS on a hard drive for testing purposes. Before I got a Mac I remember always reading about up coming technology, on different websites and everybody excited about the future, but here it's like wow. If it's not Apple, bash, bash, bash. If I go to a non Apple website, and read about USB 3 and Light Peak, comments would be different.
The difference is it is trivial to block gif and jpeg by scanning img tags (often by also looking at the dimensions of the image). It is much harder to discern ad content from non-ad content when the content is all in the form of pure html and javascript.