LOL response from the original story.
Seems that some people belong to the Apple-hating-cult.
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 Retracts Claim Suggesting Lion May Lack Support for Flash Hardware Acceleration
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL response from the original story.
Seems that some people belong to the Apple-hating-cult.
Ha...... Guess the people yesterday complaining about apple being too tyrannical over the issue of disabled hardware acceleration spoke too soon 
Glad to know that Adobe's childish need to attack Apple resulted in not just a statement mocking a new change in Lion (reverse scrolling) but they didn't even bother to get factual information about what the problem with Flash was. Complete bozos.
Worthless QT support is the reason I won't but an android. Ever surf the net on one of those things? It's godawful.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
So Adobe claims to be working closely with Apple, yet they make a stupid broad statement that could have been cleared up with a single phone call? Yeah, that sounds pretty close to me.
Stay classy, Adobe.
So Adobe claims to be working closely with Apple, yet they make a stupid broad statement that could have been cleared up with a single phone call? Yeah, that sounds pretty close to me.
Stay classy, Adobe.
There's nothing unreasonable about how Adobe behaved. Adobe (to my knowledge) never stated 'Lion lacks support for Flash hardware acceleration'. Yet everyone is continuing to complain as if they did.
The way the story has been reported, though, is inexcusable. Shame.
These are Adobe's own words:
"The previous “Known Issue” suggesting that video hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion was incorrect and based on tests with a pre-release version of Mac OS X Lion that related to only one particular Mac GPU configuration."
"Incorrect" is Adobe talking about Adobe. To their credit, they did say "possibly" when talking about hardware acceleration being disabled - they didn't talk in absolutes.
That's a PR clarification of a technical comment. The technical point was correct (but vague), the PR clarification is - if anything - incorrect. But maybe that's the developer in me talking
But my point stands - I still haven't seen an Adobe statement that "Lion lacks support for Flash Hardware acceleration", as the thread title suggests.
Flash is the reason why I won't buy a BB Storm or Android.
I prefer not to charge by battery every couple hours. Plus, Flash was never intended to be used in touch based interfaces. A finger is not a mouse.
I dunno. I personally have a love/hate thing going with Adobe. IMO, Lightroom is best of its genre, bar none. But they insist on defying standard UI conventions and polluting key parts of an otherwise great product with Flash, in much the same way that Microsoft used to insist on hard wiring proprietary IE hooks into anything and everything Windows and/or web based.Why must it always be black and white here ? Why can't someone not be a hater at all ? You know, as in : Not hating Adobe, Not hating Apple.
Geez guys, this is not a "us vs them" thing.
Adobe was a great company with great products long before the Macromedia acquisition. It baffles me why they are so insistent on being 'The Flash Company' now, instead of being 'The Photoshop Company' that they used to be. From my perspective, this all changed with Shantanu Narayen at the helm; if you want to know when it all became "black and white", I think that's your answer. He can't accept that some people just plain don't like Flash and it drives much of Adobe's strategic decision making in an attempt to force it on them.
Whether one likes Flash or not, at this point it's hard to disagree that it's becoming a serious PR problem for Adobe. Once a technology becomes viewed as "yesterday's technology", it's very, very difficult to turn it around again. (In a sense, Apple did so with the Mac around '96-'00, but they did so by completely reinventing the hardware and software).
The best route might just be to ditch the Flash plugin/swf format and concentrate on the Flash editor and exporting to HTML. I don't know if it would be possible to incorporate some of the useful Flash features (font embedding, vector graphics, compressed graphics), but it'd be interesting to see.
LOL is this a joke?
They published a tech note based on a test result on a pre-release version of Lion on one version of Mac GPU configuration.
Lion GM has been out for a week or two already, and still they did not do any testing on GM release? I am not saying they have to fix it in a week here. And if you really didn't really do any testing, why publish a tech note at all?
I mean if I think there's a bug on a previous build, the least I would do is install the latest release and see if the issue is fixed.
That's a PR clarification of a technical comment. The technical point was correct (but vague), the PR clarification is - if anything - incorrect. But maybe that's the developer in me talking
But my point stands - I still haven't seen an Adobe statement that "Lion lacks support for Flash Hardware acceleration", as the thread title suggests.
What part of this is correct?
"Flash Player may cause higher CPU activity when playing a YouTube video. Possibly related to disabled hardware acceleration."
Certainly not the part about disabled hardware acceleration. Adobe never said in absolute terms that hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion, but the above statement certainly implied that they suspected it to be the case until it was clarified.
That quote is directly from a list of issues adobe programs may run into in Lion. Adobe saying "Possibly related to disabled hardware acceleration" is exactly the same as them saying: "Possibly related to disabled hardware acceleration in Lion". Sounds quite similar to "Lion lacks support for Flash Hardware acceleration" doesn't it?
Now I don't think that Adobe actually thought that hardware acceleration for Flash was disabled. They just screwed up and released notes that they had prepared prior to Lions launch which were no longer relevant (and poorly worded to start with). As much as you may try, you can't deny what the optics of their initial statement looked like when they first released it though.
It was here but has now been updated.
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/905/cpsid_90508.html
Flash Player
Flash Player may cause higher CPU activity when playing a YouTube video. Possibly related to disabled hardware acceleration.
UPDATE: The final release of Mac OS X Lion (10.7) provides the same support for Flash hardware video acceleration as Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6). The previous Known Issue suggesting that video hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion was incorrect and based on tests with a pre-release version of Mac OS X Lion that related to only one particular Mac GPU configuration. We continue to work closely with Apple to provide Flash Player users with a high quality experience on Mac computers.
*** A conversation from yesterday....
*** And today....
I guess Adobe saw it my way.
It does not prove or disprove anything. As somebody who has worked in software development for 16 years, I have come across many scenarios where some developer claims "it is not my problem" and tries to point the finger elsewhere. When the due-diligence gets done internally and the question is finally asked "did you even test it?" the response is rarely an honest "no, I didn't", instead the developer who failed to do his job invariably points to some specific configuration he may have tested that yielded a certain result and then he extrapolated that result to the general case. With poor developers, the pattern usually repeats itself, but the conclusion is the same whether the developer is telling the truth or not. This is a sign of laziness. Not testing at all indicates laziness, and half-heartedly testing and then throwing in the towel and resorting to finger pointing with the least bit of evidence is indicative of laziness.
So while I make no accusation that Adobe failed to test (I would have to work inside Adobe to have knowledge of such things). I still feel that their public comments continue to imply a pattern of lazy development. If indeed Adobe is doing much more work internally to make this successful, then they should hire somebody to proof-read these public statements that essentially undermine the image of a hard-working group of developers trying to put forth the best possible product and make them look like a bunch of bumbling idiots.
I think Google uses "open" and "web standards" as a misdirection more than anything. Google's primary goal is to make money selling ads by whatever means necessary. I personally believe that Google will trail Apple in HTML-5 because it is in the best interests for Android for Flash to continue as long as possible. Google even pushed WebM for no better reason than to undermine non-Flash video on the web (i.e.: make it easier for websites to just use Flash video since Chrome won't support H.264 except through Flash). The cost of converting YouTube to WebM instead of H.264 is staggering compared to the flat-fee pittance that Google would have to pay for H.264 licensing to MPEG-LA (a pittance that includes indemnification from lawsuits on tons of patents in many countries, and a pittance that they have to pay anyway because of H.264 inclusion in Android since there is no WebM hardware acceleration). Note: After a certain number of units distributed, H.264 is a flat fee and no additional incremental cost is incurred per unit -- Google would fall into this category (same as Mozilla Foundation would have).
I think if Google could write all of the Web apps on Flash and exclude iOS from the party and ensure there was Flash on every browser (say by bundling it) then Google would do just that. If Google could make Android the defacto standard and have their be no mobile OS option whatsoever, they would love that. When anybody from Google speaks about "open" or "web standards" and "choice" they should add "so long as it serves our purposes". How did that whole "Net Neutrality" thing play out? Google went from being one of the biggest proponents to a full reversal when it did not suit their competitive needs.
Forgive me if I do not put Google on a pedestal as a "champion for freedom, choice, web standards, and the rights of internet users". I believe that Google, Apple, and Adobe are companies that are out to squash their competitors and make the most money doing it. They each do certain things fairly and they are each ruthless about other things. What I like about Apple is that they are pretty up-front about being jerks when they are going to be jerks -- and they make stuff the way I would like it to work for the most part. Google fans portray Google in this "champion" persona that is utter crap. As an Apple fan, let me be the first to say that I know full well that Apple wants to control the computing experience of the world so they can take in whatever direction they feel like and make money doing it while excluding others. As a fan of Apple products, I am grateful for competition. Without it, eventually Apple would be government-regulated (which would suck) and we may have had to deal with crappy notifications until iOS 7 for all I know.
When has Apple offered the same courtesy to Adobe in the past ? Seriously, wasn't it Steve Jobs that called them lazy, which is the oft repeated mantra around here...
No, I do think that they didn't have to be courteous seeing the circumstances. Apple has been nothing be arrogant towards Adobe. I don't see where they deserve such respect.
*** And today....
I guess Adobe saw it my way.
It does not prove or disprove anything. As somebody who has worked in software development for 16 years, I have come across many scenarios where some developer claims "it is not my problem" and tries to point the finger elsewhere. When the due-diligence gets done internally and the question is finally asked "did you even test it?" the response is rarely an honest "no, I didn't", instead the developer who failed to do his job invariably points to some specific configuration he may have tested that yielded a certain result and then he extrapolated that result to the general case. With poor developers, the pattern usually repeats itself, but the conclusion is the same whether the developer is telling the truth or not. This is a sign of laziness. Not testing at all indicates laziness, and half-heartedly testing and then throwing in the towel and resorting to finger pointing with the least bit of evidence is indicative of laziness.
So while I make no accusation that Adobe failed to test (I would have to work inside Adobe to have knowledge of such things). I still feel that their public comments continue to imply a pattern of lazy development. If indeed Adobe is doing much more work internally to make this successful, then they should hire somebody to proof-read these public statements that essentially undermine the image of a hard-working group of developers trying to put forth the best possible product and make them look like a bunch of bumbling idiots.
I think Google uses "open" and "web standards" as a misdirection more than anything. Google's primary goal is to make money selling ads by whatever means necessary. I personally believe that Google will trail Apple in HTML-5 because it is in the best interests for Android for Flash to continue as long as possible. Google even pushed WebM for no better reason than to undermine non-Flash video on the web (i.e.: make it easier for websites to just use Flash video since Chrome won't support H.264 except through Flash). The cost of converting YouTube to WebM instead of H.264 is staggering compared to the flat-fee pittance that Google would have to pay for H.264 licensing to MPEG-LA (a pittance that includes indemnification from lawsuits on tons of patents in many countries, and a pittance that they have to pay anyway because of H.264 inclusion in Android since there is no WebM hardware acceleration). Note: After a certain number of units distributed, H.264 is a flat fee and no additional incremental cost is incurred per unit -- Google would fall into this category (same as Mozilla Foundation would have).
I think if Google could write all of the Web apps on Flash and exclude iOS from the party and ensure there was Flash on every browser (say by bundling it) then Google would do just that. If Google could make Android the defacto standard and have their be no mobile OS option whatsoever, they would love that. When anybody from Google speaks about "open" or "web standards" and "choice" they should add "so long as it serves our purposes". How did that whole "Net Neutrality" thing play out? Google went from being one of the biggest proponents to a full reversal when it did not suit their competitive needs.
Forgive me if I do not put Google on a pedestal as a "champion for freedom, choice, web standards, and the rights of internet users". I believe that Google, Apple, and Adobe are companies that are out to squash their competitors and make the most money doing it. They each do certain things fairly and they are each ruthless about other things. What I like about Apple is that they are pretty up-front about being jerks when they are going to be jerks -- and they make stuff the way I would like it to work for the most part. Google fans portray Google in this "champion" persona that is utter crap. As an Apple fan, let me be the first to say that I know full well that Apple wants to control the computing experience of the world so they can take in whatever direction they feel like and make money doing it while excluding others. As a fan of Apple products, I am grateful for competition. Without it, eventually Apple would be government-regulated (which would suck) and we may have had to deal with crappy notifications until iOS 7 for all I know.
And there's the "Good Adobe" for you. They didn't hide the mistake, and they updated the article to reflect the correct information. More like this please.
I can only offer my opinion as a developer, and ex QA Engineer - this is how I believe this played out:
- Adobe tested pre-release builds of Lion, and found a bug (with one GPU) where hardware acceleration was disabled.
- The sentence above - which was probably written by a developer/tester and not vetted by PR - says to me "There's a bug causing a heavy load on the CPU, most likely due to the issue where GPU acceleration is disabled". It certainly doesn't say to me "Lion disables Flash acceleration". Think about it - if Adobe thought hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion, do you think they'd say: "Possibly related to..."? No, they'd say "CPU load is high because hardware acceleration is disabled in Lion".
- News sites picked up on this snippet, and added their interpretation to it. "Lion May Lack Support for Flash Hardware Acceleration".
- That interpretation certainly makes Adobe look amateurish. Adobe makes a PR response which (IMO, the one real mistake Adobe made here) "corrects" the original technical point rather than "clarifying" it.
All in all, Adobe are the real losers here, with their PR and QA procedures now also being called into question, all due to one vaguely worded technical point.
Fixed that there for you.
I personally have no love or hate towards any corporate entities (except Microsoft, and then again, not for their products, but for their corporate conduct). I judge every product based on its own merits.
Yes, it does. The issue was with a "pre-release" version of OS X, hence anyone claiming Adobe did not test on "pre-release" versions were dead wrong. Like I stated. No less, no more. Thanks for missing the point completely, something a developer of 16 years should have grasped, having a logical mind.
Google is much ahead of Apple for HTML5 pushing. Remove the blinders for a minute and look at who sits on the WhatWG and who's the editor of the very standard you claim Apple is pushing the most.
Also, look very closely at the HTML5 support in the shipping Chrome and shipping Safari browsers...
WebM does not go against HTML5. What are you talking about ? WebM is a patent royalty free standard codec at this point. H.264 is not. H.264 poses problems for people who'd want to implement HTML5 but not have the money to license H.264 to do it. WebM vs H.264 is essentially GIF vs PNG of the 90s. Except this time, PNG has corporate backers. WebM is very much about easing and broadening HTML5 adoption. H.264 aims to make HTML5 a corporate only affair.
I think you quite grossly misunderstand what HTML5 is. I'll stop here, obviously your grasp on HTML5 is very weak and this is completely off topic.
Rant more my friend, educate yourself less.
Last edited:
somewhat disagree....
I somewhat disagree. When you've bought into the Apple platform and buy an iPhone and acquire apps and build up your iTunes music collection and make sure there's album art, etc, etc. It's natural to go with an iPad, and Apple would WANT you to.
You just have to live with the annoyances of not being able to enjoy the 'FULL' web experience (even though IMHO Flash should die a slow painful death).
I thought HTML5 video would be one of the KEYS but Google and their WEBM push and supposedly dropping H.264 support in Chrome, etc. brings up OTHER problems too.
It's not a simple world.
I somewhat disagree. When you've bought into the Apple platform and buy an iPhone and acquire apps and build up your iTunes music collection and make sure there's album art, etc, etc. It's natural to go with an iPad, and Apple would WANT you to.
You just have to live with the annoyances of not being able to enjoy the 'FULL' web experience (even though IMHO Flash should die a slow painful death).
I thought HTML5 video would be one of the KEYS but Google and their WEBM push and supposedly dropping H.264 support in Chrome, etc. brings up OTHER problems too.
It's not a simple world.
Last edited:
Which is why Chrome comes with Flash built in and Google has responded to Flash bugs in their implementation faster than Adobe and the general Flash player? Sorry, but Googles open/standard line is a marketing gimmick. They are open/standard right up to the point theyre not.
Sort of, they are still deeply resentful of the iPhone snub and even more so of the Steves open letter. Trust me the little public slips and public digs are the tip of the iceberg over there.
Ironically what they came away with from the whole iPhone debacle was like Apple they needed to be more ruthless when it came to supporting older machines and browsers. Flash 10.3 is the first step in this direction, you can see especially on the OS X side the specs are brutal 10.6 or 10.7 only. Windows is a little different story as XP still has such a large market share they have to support it, but they would love not to.
Which is why Google ships more up-to-date implementations of WebKit and thus better HTML5 support than Apple in their Chrome browser ?
Which is why a Google employee is sitting on the WhatWG and is the editor of the HMTL5 standard itself ?
Which is why Google was amongst the first to build a HTML5 based player for their video streaming site, and one of the first to put towards opening a video codec for a royalty free possibility for HTML5 in order to push acceptance to more than corporate entities ?
Yeah, I guess that integrated chrome Flash player thing really shows their true colors.
God I hate the Google hate here. It's illogical and irrational and goes into paranoid delusions.
Both your Macbooks are broken. My air's temp never rises above 69 degrees, even when playing Civilization and pegging the CPU. The fan sees to that.