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 Testing MacBook Air-Optimized Version of Flash Player
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is stupid
It is ridiculous that there is no hardware acceleration for all Intel Macs. Sure it might take a bit more dev time but it would be really nice if I didn't have to buy a brand new Mac to have any support for video hardware acceleration. I have a MBP with the Nvidia 8600m GT and hardware acceleration is supported in Windows, so why can't they do the same in OS X. The MacBook Air isn't the only portable affected by flash draining the battery quickly.
It is ridiculous that there is no hardware acceleration for all Intel Macs. Sure it might take a bit more dev time but it would be really nice if I didn't have to buy a brand new Mac to have any support for video hardware acceleration. I have a MBP with the Nvidia 8600m GT and hardware acceleration is supported in Windows, so why can't they do the same in OS X. The MacBook Air isn't the only portable affected by flash draining the battery quickly.
Maybe no one publicly has voiced it before Steve, or maybe someone has but isn't well known like Steve.
I've said negative things about Flash before Steve did, but in comparison I'm a nobody so no one heard me.
Ditto. I started complaining about Flash when the year started with a '1'. Mainly because it was 70% functional on Win, and 10% functional on Mac.
They've blocked ******, so this is the next best thing:
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=adobe+sabotaging+HTML5
OMG, nothing brings out the Apple fanboys and OS X software "experts" like an article on Flash. Could and should Flash be faster and use less resources? Of course it should. Adobe software appears to be no more flawed than Apple's.
I use Click to Flash on my Macs not because of speed and resources but to eliminate obnoxious graphics, graphics which would be no less obnoxious if they were QuickTime, HTML5, Quicksilver or any other method of bothering me.
I use Click to Flash on my Macs not because of speed and resources but to eliminate obnoxious graphics, graphics which would be no less obnoxious if they were QuickTime, HTML5, Quicksilver or any other method of bothering me.
So hum, the firsts link on that query are to sites that suggest that Adobe is not in fact sabotaging HTML5...
I don't get it, first you say they are, they you point me to citations which claim they aren't. Heck, the first few links are on blogs of Adobe employees...
Burden of proof is on you sorry. You want to make bold claims, you need to back them up. Your readers should not have to Google it, nor are you "Googling it for them" when you provide citations.
Last edited:
Glad to hear Adobe is working on an optimized version of Flash. The amount of stress Flash puts on my kids Macs whey they play Pet Society is ridiculous ...
"and claim that HTML5 content of a similar nature to that presented in Flash would use just as much or more power."
Ah ah ah i doubt that. even if it is true HTML5 is accessible, standard, pluginless, and especailly works on other operating system as well like Linux PPC, AMigaOS, MorhpOS and many others. Always the same thing over and over... Flash needs to die.
Ah ah ah i doubt that. even if it is true HTML5 is accessible, standard, pluginless, and especailly works on other operating system as well like Linux PPC, AMigaOS, MorhpOS and many others. Always the same thing over and over... Flash needs to die.
Oh, stop it already, of course Adobe has bought the first couple results on Google. Drill down on the data, everything you need to know is there. You just have to take off your rose-colored Adobe glasses long enough to see it.
"macbook air" optimized? You mean that they plan to reduce CPU utilization and overall make it more efficient? What a novel concept...
Citation needed.
Hum, like (from Shelley Powers of O'Reilly) :
Again, burden of proof is on you my friend. Up to now, all you have done is obscurely reference the Appleinsider story without ever linking to it. You ask me to get proof myself and when I uncover that this whole story was an unsubstantiated rumor gone awry, you tell me Adobe bought results off Google without again providing any proof.
Credibility fail. Prove it or lose it.
Do you really think the W3C is going to get the H.264 genie back in the bottle? What works in most browsers today and tomorrow is what will get ratified. With or without Adobe's "help". All that is important is to get enough of a framework in place so most browsers can work on the implementation. Firefox will go along or risk eventual irrelevance. In the mean time there are suitable workarounds.
Remember that it was Adobe that insisted it needed access to H.264 hardware acceleration to make Flash perform well. Which only works to solidify H.264 as a video standard, one that even Firefox will eventually have to support.
Then that would be Vorbis. IE 8 currently supports nothing, Firefox, Chrome and Opera support Vorbis, Chrome and Safari support H.264. So about 10% market share for H.264 and a whooping near 45% for Vorbis. Until IE9 ships or Chrome overtakes Firefox, h.264 is really limited as far as browser supports goes.
Really, not a good argument to make in light of current supported formats.
The most probable outcome of the video format war is that the spec will remain as it is, format agnostic and like the img tag, browser support will in the end determine what is and isn't popular (just like IE managed to kill PNG even though it was the best image format).
Shelley Powers is an Adobe shill. Adobe had a minion block key parts of the spec, he did it behind the scenes, he got called on it in a way that exposed the private manuevering, and the spec magically became "unblocked".Citation needed.
Hum, like (from Shelley Powers of O'Reilly) :
Credibility fail. Prove it or lose it.
You apparently knew nothing about this, suddenly you are able to cite the relevant Adobe rebuttals. If you are looking for the Adobe party line, you didn't need even a Google link, just believe what you want to believe. :shrug:
If anything, this shows why the W3C can't be trusted with ratifying a spec this important.
But at least you know what to expect - if "Adobe" or "flash" is in the main topic, expect lots of ignorant replies.
Yep.
Did you mean "Silverlight" from Microsoft?
Wish I have option not to use Photoshop or InDesign... Anyone... Please...
Just more spin by Adobe. A little to late for me to trust them or their products.
Wish I have option not to use Photoshop or InDesign... Anyone... Please...
Just more spin by Adobe. A little to late for me to trust them or their products.
Wish I have option not to use Photoshop or InDesign... Anyone... Please...
Right. Why not make an optimized version of Flash all around regardless of laptop or desktop. Streamline it and make it CPU efficient. That'll help get the bad press off if it.
Time for a reality check: The fact that iOS does not support Flash only paved the path to oblivion for iOS.
I bought my first Android a few months ago, precisely because I wanted a desktop browsing experience on my phone -- with Flash and all.
I now have it: I can browse all sorts of sites unavailable on my old iPhone, including sites done fully in Flash. The vast majority of Flash sites work so well that I don't even pay attention to what's in Flash and what's not.
My phone lasts through the day, so battery life is not an issue.
A growing number of my friends, most of whom are, or were, iPhone users, are contemplating the same switch (especially after comparing my phone to theirs), and some have already switched.
The reality outside these pages is that most people just want to see the web the way it looks on their desktop. And that includes Flash.
The reason Jobs banned Flash has nothing to do with performance, but with a "walled garden" business model, where Apple gets a cut of every penny spent. This includes apps and media, but perhaps most importantly, ads.
iAd may very well be an important part of the reason why Google jumped on Android. In the wake of the iPhone success, Jobs wanted to cut Google out of large portion of the smart phone market, and Google was not going to let it happen.
Jobs seems to be planning to extend the "walled garden" to OS X, since the next version of the OS will incorporate iOS elements, including, I bet, iAd.
The bottom line is, Flash is inconvenient for Jobs, so he wants to kill it. I am afraid this move will only marginalize iOS within the next year or two, until iOS becomes irrelevant.
Hopefully the same faith is not coming to OS X.
I bought my first Android a few months ago, precisely because I wanted a desktop browsing experience on my phone -- with Flash and all.
I now have it: I can browse all sorts of sites unavailable on my old iPhone, including sites done fully in Flash. The vast majority of Flash sites work so well that I don't even pay attention to what's in Flash and what's not.
My phone lasts through the day, so battery life is not an issue.
A growing number of my friends, most of whom are, or were, iPhone users, are contemplating the same switch (especially after comparing my phone to theirs), and some have already switched.
The reality outside these pages is that most people just want to see the web the way it looks on their desktop. And that includes Flash.
The reason Jobs banned Flash has nothing to do with performance, but with a "walled garden" business model, where Apple gets a cut of every penny spent. This includes apps and media, but perhaps most importantly, ads.
iAd may very well be an important part of the reason why Google jumped on Android. In the wake of the iPhone success, Jobs wanted to cut Google out of large portion of the smart phone market, and Google was not going to let it happen.
Jobs seems to be planning to extend the "walled garden" to OS X, since the next version of the OS will incorporate iOS elements, including, I bet, iAd.
The bottom line is, Flash is inconvenient for Jobs, so he wants to kill it. I am afraid this move will only marginalize iOS within the next year or two, until iOS becomes irrelevant.
Hopefully the same faith is not coming to OS X.