Adobe Retracts Claim Suggesting Lion May Lack Support for Flash Hardware Acceleration

[BC2009]

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.

Thanks for your selective quotation, but Adobe saying that they tested a pre-release Lion does not make it the truth -- anybody can lie or make excuses. Adobe making a statement does not prove or disprove anything except for the fact that they need somebody editing their statements before they make them public. Adobe may have worked very hard on Flash for Lion for all I know. My only beef is that their public statements do not make it look that way and only serve to make them look bad. I stand by that. You apparently missed my point entirely. But thanks for playing.

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.

Educate myself? Please. You should remove your blinders and try to see the motives behind the actions of these companies. First off, what does H.264 liecnsing cost for a non-corporate entity? Have you looked it up? Have you educated yourself? The answer is nothing? That's right.... zero! To quote Ed Bott (something I am not often prone to do):

The amounts are charged annually and are based on the number of subscribers:

100,000 or fewer subscribers = no royalty
100,001 to 250,000 subscribers = $25,000
250,001 to 500,000 subscribers = $50,000
500,001 to 1,000,000 subscribers = $75,000
greater than 1,000,000 subscribers = $100,000

Do the math. If you have 350,000 subscribers, your annual royalty cost per subscriber is a little over 14 cents, or 1.2 cents per month. Not exactly exorbitant.

Mozilla foundation is hardly poor. They receive money from many corporations and users who support their work. If WebM was about what they say, then why remove H.264 support from Chrome? Why? It costs Google no additional money to include H.264 support in Chrome. However, if you have a website using Flash Video, then Flash Player includes H.264 support. So if I am running a Web site and I want my users to be able to access my videos in any browser, then I can either re-encode in WebM to get Chrome users, or I can embed the Flash player applet on my page so Chrome can use it without me re-encoding.

I fully grasp what HTML-5 is -- and it goes way beyond video. However, I feel that when it comes to "open web standards" Google only cares so long as something is a means to the end of driving more ads. They are no champion. You might want to stop strapping yourself into that Google high chair and letting them spoon feed you the creamed carrots. You're a big boy now, you can think for yourself. While your at it, you can stop taking everything Adobe says as fact as well.

Maybe you should change your handle to GullibleWRX?

That was a nice attempt at diversion to refuting my points though. Keep it up. And again, thanks for playing.

 

[Frobozz]

Well that doesn't explain why my 2011 MBP starts revving it's fans like it's about to go into low earth orbit when it encounters certain Flash content. I'll have to double check and see what is causing it. Maybe it's unrelated. But it certainly only started when I upgraded to Lion.

 

[strabes]

Here's the problem. Regardless of where you stand on the issue Apple shouldn't restrict users from Flash. If I buy a product I should be able to use it how I want. They can choose not to pre-install it but I should still have the option. Adobe and Apple need to take a week long vacation together, make love and get back to where they were before. Steven just take them back.

Apple isn't restricting anyone from using flash. If you want flash on your tablet, your'e 100% free to purchase an Android tablet. That's the nice thing about capitalism: no one can force anyone to do anything. All interaction is mutually voluntary.

 

[KnightWRX]

Thanks for your selective quotation, but Adobe saying that they tested a pre-release Lion does not make it the truth -- anybody can lie or make excuses. Adobe making a statement does not prove or disprove anything except for the fact

See, that's where I stop playing. You're deep down into paranoid delusions territory here, mixing emotion into it. There is no reason to believe that they haven't played around and tested their stuff on the DP versions of Lion. Benefit of the doubt, I'm not about to lambast them and call them liars, that's putting too much energy into this.

Same as I wouldn't call Apple liars.

Again, the HTML5 stuff is off-topic and your grasp is quite frail and tainted with pro-Apple, anti-everybody else sentiment (someone that shouldn't be, mr. "logical mind-software developper sir). The fact remains H.264 is patent encumbered and people like the KDE foundation don't have the money or clout of the Mozilla foundation, nor do all the other startups that would want to ship a browser. WebM is as much HTML5 as H.264, since the draft standard imposes no codec, like for images where formats are not imposed by the standard.

Apple isn't restricting anyone from using flash. If you want flash on your tablet, your'e 100% free to purchase an Android tablet. That's the nice thing about capitalism: no one can force anyone to do anything. All interaction is mutually voluntary.

If Apple wasn't restricting you, then Adobe would have Flash running on iOS. Seriously, they did with Android, and contrary to popular belief, it works just fine. But that is what you buy when you buy into the iOS eco-system, a heavily restricted walled-garden. Apple admits so themselves. So please don't say you're not restricted when even the people making the damn platform say you are.

 

[Will do good]

Adobe had fallen so far, they now seem so stupid when they open their mouth

 

[grahamperrin]

Performance implications of the Adobe Flash Player hardware acceleration lock

In Adobe's opening paragraph:

To avoid any more confusion, we wanted to clarify …

To further clarify

Hardware acceleration is usually locked on — this setting and others are inalterable — so if the user senses an undesirable impact on performance, there is no easy way to troubleshoot performance- or acceleration-related issues.

The golden master Build 11A511 of 10.7 was seeded to developers on 1st July. I am disappointed but unsurprised that in the nineteen or twenty days that followed, Adobe could not gather for itself a clear picture of the ways in which its product settings fail on a major operating system.

I did find that Adobe's use of hardware acceleration caused performance problems on at least some versions of Snow Leopard.

Recently I abandoned the installable player — working without it is far easier than I imagined! On the increasingly rare occasions when viewing Flash content is a must, I simply use the Develop menu of Safari to use the player that's integral to Google Chrome.

 

[munkery]

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.

69 C = 156 F

77 C = 170 F

I think it is possible that their machines are fine.

I usually get temperatures around that range when using Flash.

 

[BC2009]

See, that's where I stop playing. You're deep down into paranoid delusions territory here, mixing emotion into it. There is no reason to believe that they haven't played around and tested their stuff on the DP versions of Lion. Benefit of the doubt, I'm not about to lambast them and call them liars, that's putting too much energy into this.

Same as I wouldn't call Apple liars.

I am not accusing them of lying -- just saying that their statement neither proves nor disproves anything -- it requires an assumption that they are telling the truth and not making an excuse. I am not lambasting or calling them liars -- I am just saying that a major player like Adobe needs to be careful about public statements they make and what light it will cast them in. The characterization that can be drawn from their recent statements is that they are a bit behind the 8-ball on a Lion version of Flash. Whether or not it is true, their public statements imply that and they should be much more careful with what they say.

Again, the HTML5 stuff is off-topic and your grasp is quite frail and tainted with pro-Apple, anti-everybody else sentiment (someone that shouldn't be, mr. "logical mind-software developper sir). The fact remains H.264 is patent encumbered and people like the KDE foundation don't have the money or clout of the Mozilla foundation, nor do all the other startups that would want to ship a browser. WebM is as much HTML5 as H.264, since the draft standard imposes no codec, like for images where formats are not imposed by the standard.

So I am hardly "anti-everybody else" -- heck, I just quoted Ed Bott, and I read his stuff even though he is about as anti-Apple as you can get. So let me state that I agree with you that in and of itself, WebM is not bad in and of itself. And WebM versus H.264 has nothing to do with HTML-5 in and of itself, its just one encoding or another to be supported -- HTML-5's "video" tag is agnostic, it is up to the browser or OS to support the encoding. While it is certainly debatable as to whether WebM is encumbered by patents (and Google is not confident enough to offer any indemnification), if you are willing to take the risk, there is no reason to not support WebM and disregard obtaining an H.264 license.

However, WebM is linked to Google's support (or lack thereof) of HTML-5 adoption over closed standards like Flash. Google has played the WebM card in a way that is setup to attempt to postpone Flash-less websites using HTML-5. Why? Because if you are already using Flash and you need it for video, then why stop using it for animations and drag-and-drop and all those other features it provides?

Why else would Google remove H.264 support from Chrome? Why not support both H.264 and WebM in Chrome? It would cost Google nothing at all to continue supporting H.264 encoding. Microsoft went as far as to publish an H.264 extension for Chrome (which folks would have to download). If Google's motives were that of a champion of "open web standards" (as they claim) then they would not be promoting Flash in such a big way (bundling it with Chrome?). There is no bigger hinderance to HTML-5 adoption by Web developers than Flash, and there is no bigger danger to Flash than HTML-5 since the coming of HTML-5 removes the need for Flash in many many cases. I look forward to the day that I can get the operating hours of a favorite restaurant and glance at their menu without having to use Flash.

EDIT: - KnightWRX was not replying to me, so I removed the last part of my response.

 

[bojan1987]

Adobe reador os x lion

For some of the posts that posted if adobe works so close with apple they should make it right.

well if thats the case i blame both a little more towards adobe because they should have tested it. but also if the GOLD MEMBER version came out, why didn't apples dev team report anything?

I am not judging apple or anything but since both companies make money off each other shouldn't they make it work together.

I am sure that apple gets a portion of its share of money off adobe products. adobe has to have a licence to make software for os x systems.

 

[JAT]

You're doing it again. Yes, it is obvious. If you've ever worked in software development, you'd know the Mac team at Adobe is probably the same kind of geeks we are and they would have started playing the with the DPs as soon as we did.

And since the issue was reported on "pre-release" versions and the statement is retracted, it can't have been a GM issue. That much is obvious, well, except to those who just want to bash Adobe.

Go on hating my friend. I hope you don't lose sleep over it.

The point is the complaint, not how they tested. Surely, you've realized that? Only a few seem to have.

 

[John.B]

For some of the posts that posted if adobe works so close with apple they should make it right.

well if thats the case i blame both a little more towards adobe because they should have tested it. but also if the GOLD MEMBER version came out, why didn't apples dev team report anything?

I am not judging apple or anything but since both companies make money off each other shouldn't they make it work together.

Adobe Flash has had craptacular performance on OS X forever. Steve Jobs even dashed off an angry missive on the subject about a year ago. What more do you want?

I am sure that apple gets a portion of its share of money off adobe products. adobe has to have a licence to make software for os x systems.

Adobe develops Mac software the way any other developer does. Xcode is free (currently, depending on the day) but joining the developer program has a nominal cost.

FWIW, John Nack of Adobe famously pointed out that about half of Adobe's CS product revenues are for the Mac platform.

 

[wescravn]

Flash is a POS. Glad to see the developers don't know what there talking about

 

[vladi]

FWIW, John Nack of Adobe famously pointed out that about half of Adobe's CS product revenues are for the Mac platform.

Well that is the problem. It used to be a lot more than half and then Windows adaptations started selling hot and now we are at 50/50. I think I read somewhere that Windows versions sell by few percentages more than OSX.

 

[unknownart]

Adobe is so backwards

Wait. Isn't this all backwards?
Isn't Adobe suppose to make Flash work on the Mac OS platform, not Apple making an OS to work with Flash? Flash is after all, an add-on plug-in. An accessory to other software.
This is an Adobe problem and Adobe can't do it's job, so instead of fixing the problem, they blame the platform for not conforming to their plug-ins. Adobe is at the top of megalomanic of companies, surpassing Apple and Microsoft!

 

[jacobj]

no flash is The reason I won't buy an iPad

Then you grossly over estimate the need for flash. I do 95% of my browsing on an iPad and there is no issue. My only issue s with the BBC website, but I use the news or iplayer apps To cover those issues.

 

[ChainsawBuddha]

I love how I totally got brutalized for having an opinion. The general response is "go somewhere else" or go buy something else. I am a happy apple customer by the way everyone. I just don't like being told what to do with my device. Thanks for being so warm and welcoming to someone else's opinion. Next time I will just go lay down in front of a train the next time I think against the collective borg.

 

[NT1440]

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.

Yea. Its just broken :roll eyes: What a pathetic response.

It never goes above 65 degrees, until I play a movie, then suddenly my cpu is showing a full 50-60% load while the fans kick into overdrive. This isn't even HD. I'm running the newest version of Flash available.

What's sad is this is actually asignificant improvement in the state of flash from when I first got my MBP two years ago running Leopard.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yea. Its just broken :roll eyes: What a pathetic response.

It never goes above 65 degrees, until I play a movie, then suddenly my cpu is showing a full 50-60% load while the fans kick into overdrive. This isn't even HD. I'm running the newest version of Flash available.

What's sad is this is actually asignificant improvement in the state of flash from when I first got my MBP two years ago running Leopard.

I just tried playing a 720p trailer off IMDB. CPU pegged at 40% userspace, 30% system. Temp stayed at 64 degrees, again, the fan saw to that.

Fix your fan. Same for playing Worms Armageddon or Civilization IV. Anything that uses a lot of CPU cycles basically. This isn't a "Flash issue", it's a "CPUs produce heat when used" issue.

 

[John.B]

This isn't a "Flash issue", it's a "CPUs produce heat when used" issue.

And all this time I thought it was a "Flash generates much higher CPU utilization" issue...

 

[KnightWRX]

And all this time I thought it was a "Flash generates much higher CPU utilization" issue...

Nope, it's a "Anything that produces graphic output and decodes video frames while also producing overlay, using a vector graphics engine results in high CPU utilization" issue.

Seriously guys. There's a trick to stop your computer from "heating" : shut it down and never use it. For everyone else, that's why the fan is in there.

 

[John.B]

Nope, it's a "Anything that produces graphic output and decodes video frames while also producing overlay, using a vector graphics engine results in high CPU utilization" issue.

On any of the Macs I have access to, the CPU utilization is lower for H.264 video than it is for Flash video.

Unfortunately, I'm not finding the link to the website that hosted a number of example videos in both formats to make it simpler for people to test the impact of Flash video on their own Macs vs. H.264. Pretty enlightening stuff.

 

[CQd44]

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.

Great thing about android phones: You can disable the flash plug in or simply not install it.

 

[Mr. Gates]

Flash isn't going away anytime soon.

Better to have it and work out the kinks then pretend.

So many businesses have websites that run on Flash.

 

[cmaier]

Flash isn't going away anytime soon.

Better to have it and work out the kinks then pretend.

So many businesses have websites that run on Flash.

Seems to me it's going away. More and more sites work even if you don't have flash installed.

 

[KnightWRX]

Seems to me it's going away. More and more sites work even if you don't have flash installed.

It is going away. It's the speed at which it will go away though that is up to debate. Frankly, HTML5 Canvas + SVG + video/audio tags pretty much can do what Flash does. The problem is 2 folds still :

- Browser implementations are still inconsistent.
- Canvas is very very low-level and raw. When frameworks get worked out on top of it (like WebGL for instance), and developer tools are built around those, then it will be ready to replace Flash.

Apple should probably try to concentrate on this second point. Adobe does, they are making tools to make Flash and Flex be able to export to HTML5 Canvas. Funny how that works ? Flash, the developer tool, is positionning itself as the tool of choice for HTML5 Canvas work...