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.
Apple Opens Door to Hardware-Accelerated Decoding of H.264 Video in Flash
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You suffer under the misconception that Flash is too slow at decoding the animation. It isn't. It just manages to waste time without any use. I'm not saying it takes flash 60 to 90% to play that advert. It probably takes 2% to play the advert and then it is sitting around for 58 to 88% of the time running the CPU in circles to make the fans run faster. That's why the hardware acceleration won't help.
And "flash banners following you around" may sound creepy but doesn't cost any CPU time. And excuse me for not being an Adobe fan who is on the lookout for the latest version of their bloody software.
Yes, it's nice that after years and years of complaints about lousy performance and 3 years after the iPhone came out without Flash that Adobe is finally trying to fix the crappy software. But I wish someone would explain to you the difference between 'now' and 'some time in the future'. You may be happy running betas, but the availability of a beta does not mean that it's finished.
More importantly, and the point you keep ignoring, is that even your magical 10.1 WOULD NOT RUN ON AN IPHONE even if Apple cooperated. Adobe's minimum hardware requirements are 800 MHz A8 - which is considerably higher than the iPhone. So even this 10.1 that you brag about - EVEN IF IT DOES WHAT ADOBE SAYS (which is quite open to question) won't work on the iPhone - or the vast majority of mobile devices. Only a tiny number of the newest devices will run it. In fact, NONE of the devices available a year ago when Adobe was saying it was Apple's fault are cable of running 10.1.
And that also begs the question. Apple and people on this forum have been complaining that Flash is a huge CPU hog and horribly inefficient. You're saying that Flash 10.1 (when it finally comes out) will reduce CPU usage by 80+%. Isn't that simply confirming what Apple said - that Flash was a hopelessly inefficient CPU hog for all these years?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Since Apple mobile hardware is built on OS X underpinnings, it should, and could... more easily than many of its competitors. It doesn't by Apple's choice, not because it would be harder to get Flash going on it vs. other mobile platforms that aren't Windows or OS X based.
Why do the Adobe shills keep ignoring the facts?
As of today, there is no full version of Flash for ANY mobile platform.
Windows Mobile 7 will not support Flash.
Even Flash 10.1 (which is supposed to be the first version of Flash for mobile devices) requires an 800 MHz A8 - which is 30% faster than even the fastest iPhone.
How are all those things Apple's fault?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You do realize that HTML5 is NOT expected to be ratified as W3C final release until roughly 2022 don't you? I'm pretty sure we'll have Flash 13-15 before HTML5 is ratified by W3C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
You are aware, I suppose, that Adobe's own minimum requirements prevent anything other than iPad from running Flash, right?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There are hardly "full" versions of anything on Mobile devices. But there are "lite" versions of many things, and a lite version of Flash could run a great deal of Flash web applications on mobile devices. Since chunks of OS X are stripped away for iDevices, one might say that it doesn't run a "full" version of OS X. But it runs enough of OS X to make it reasonably easy to port OS X programs to iDevice-specific versions. This is not hugely different.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yep. But if I was Apple, that's the FIRST iDevice where I would "bend" the stance on Flash. It makes the most sense there, as it is the effort to fill the gap between phone-size portables and laptops/netbooks. It is supposed to be a viable alternative to netbooks and maybe laptops too, if a person doesn't do too much or too intense content production. It also has a relatively BIG battery, which nails one of the biggest Apple-offered reasons for no Flash on its cousins. I think it makes most sense for that device to have a user option to run Flash, and one of just a couple reasons why I own just about everything ELSE that Apple puts out... but not this one (worse, this reason is just a software reason).
Let's be really clear here. Adobe posted numbers a few months ago about December requests for Flash software from iDevices available at the time. In just December alone, there were 8M requests. That's 8M wants that were unfulfilled in just a single month. Because the hardware couldn't handle it in any way? No, because Apple won't even allow users to have the option on these devices. Again, I think I'm smart enough to decide if I want to burn a battery a little faster to do what I want to do with my iDevice. And I don't think I'm the only one.
Now for all of those who blamed Adobe. I have been saying all along this is what is necessary to make Flash work on the Mac. Kudos to Apple for giving in a little bit.
The fact that someone clicked a "download flash" icon doesn't mean they actually cared. It doesn't mean they actually felt bad that they couldn't see the flash ad they were missing. And the number of people clicking on such things will decrease as websites are beginning to serve up flashless pages and various games and streaming sites are moving to apps.
If you like numbers, the more important number for Apple is sales, and nothing in the sales data gives the slightest indication that anyone gives a crap about flash.
As for my earlier point - there is no such thing as Flash on cortex a8 yet. Let's see some device manufacturer that supplies it, and then see how it runs, before declaring that Apple is somehow raping our childhoods by preventing us from having free access to such a wondrous plugin.
Or it could be because of the limited resources Adobe has to work with to make Flash work right on OSX. It looks like Apple made the first stride to helping this.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
cmaier, I appreciate your very biased examples to support your stance. "raping our childhoods" is particularly flowery. I think hardly anyone is unhappy about not being able to see a Flash ad. But Flash can serve up a lot more than just ads and video, and is used as such to do all kinds of wow-media to make the web more interesting.
And if we're going to say "millions of iDevice buyers" are voting against Flash, then I guess we can say "hundreds of millions of Windows buyers are voting against Apple. I believe iDevice buyers are voting for the OTHER features of the device, in spite of their shortcomings (this being just one such shortcoming).
And I also suggest that the numbers won't go down as sales of iDevices go up. They'll be just more people trying to access the full Internet and learning after their purchase that some of it doesn't work on their iDevice.
And if we're going to say "millions of iDevice buyers" are voting against Flash, then I guess we can say "hundreds of millions of Windows buyers are voting against Apple. I believe iDevice buyers are voting for the OTHER features of the device, in spite of their shortcomings (this being just one such shortcoming).
And I also suggest that the numbers won't go down as sales of iDevices go up. They'll be just more people trying to access the full Internet and learning after their purchase that some of it doesn't work on their iDevice.
So are we gonna get XBMC/Plex/mPlayer with hardware acceleration to watch the common 1080p x264 MKVs? Is it just up to the devs now?
Who cares? I was using an 802.11n router for years before it was ratified. HTML 5 is very useful today. Flash is not (on mobile devices).
The problem is that the 'lite' versions of Flash don't run the majority of Flash sites. So if the site doesn't work with Flash Lite, why bother with it in the first place?
Fortunately, you're not Apple. That would simply create even more confusion in the marketplace and would reduce the incentive for developers to code native iPhone OS apps.
But, then, I'm sure you know more about business than Jobs and the rest of the Apple team.
Adobe is now allowed to use ONE API to hit the hardware directly. They could have done the same thing with Core Video and refused to do so. Furthermore, that's not going to do anything about the other 99,000 problems with Flash - it MIGHT help with ONE of the many problems.
More importantly, EVEN WITH hardware acceleration, Flash 10.1 requires more horsepower than the iPhone (or the overwhelming majority of phones out there) can provide, so it's irrelevant to the real issue.
How did a topic on opening the API in the computer OS for Flash to make calls to the video card become a discussion about Flash on the iPhone?
I'm surprised that there are so many developers, not just end users, that just don't get it. It seems that when there are more than three variables involved, people just ignore them and lump everything into a single category. Stop confusing Flash with video just because it's being delivered with a SWF format player.
Flash can deliver various video types, flv, f4v, mp4, using various compression - Sorensen, On2, h.264. Each of these codecs has pros and cons but it's generally accepted that mp4 gives you the best PQ at lower bit rates but still requires more processing to decode vs formats that use less compression.
It's impossiblemtomtell what's being delivered, only that it's coming through a Flash player.
And stop confusing well desinged and scripted Flash content with poor designs. It's hard to tell sometimes, but the bad ones aren't the fault of the platform. If Adobe needs to rewrite Flash at all, they should approach it like they did with Dreamweaver that forces the developer into using best practices. They may lose some of their user base, but it would help them in many other ways.
I'm surprised that there are so many developers, not just end users, that just don't get it. It seems that when there are more than three variables involved, people just ignore them and lump everything into a single category. Stop confusing Flash with video just because it's being delivered with a SWF format player.
Flash can deliver various video types, flv, f4v, mp4, using various compression - Sorensen, On2, h.264. Each of these codecs has pros and cons but it's generally accepted that mp4 gives you the best PQ at lower bit rates but still requires more processing to decode vs formats that use less compression.
It's impossiblemtomtell what's being delivered, only that it's coming through a Flash player.
And stop confusing well desinged and scripted Flash content with poor designs. It's hard to tell sometimes, but the bad ones aren't the fault of the platform. If Adobe needs to rewrite Flash at all, they should approach it like they did with Dreamweaver that forces the developer into using best practices. They may lose some of their user base, but it would help them in many other ways.
I'm not biased. You are. I'm agnostic. My point is that I refuse to cry about Apple not giving us access to a unicorn, because I'm not sure a unicorn exists. To the extent a unicorn exists, I'm not sure it's not a lame unicorn. So when someone shows me the unicorn, and shows me that it can run on all four of its legs, at that point I will expend my energy being sad/angry/whatever that Apple won't let me have it.
Yes, this is true (to the extent that all of the people you mention are actually making purchasing decisions. i don't think that's quite true. I think people who use macs generally want to use them. I think that most people who use windows machines generally want to use them, but there are millions who would rather use macs but can't, because their workplaces supply them with pcs. still, more purchasers vote against macs then for it. I am making a consistent argument here.
A release candidate isn't a beta, it's, well, a release candidate, as in "this is what we'd like to ship, unless someone finds any critical bugs not detected in the betas".
More importantly, since the trouble you seem to be having with 10.1 is that the final version isn't yet released, are you actually suggesting that the alternative (HTLM5) is in a better shape, more tested, more finalized, more ready to roll than the Flash RC, when major browsers like IE don't even support HTML5 properly yet?
This is the core problem with your argument – you dismiss 10.1 because it's not completely finalized, but – assuming you're a supporter of HTML5 / Canvas – you're advocating technology still in its infancy, much more rudimentary and shaky than Flash 10.1 will ever be. Double standards much?
The point I keep ignoring? I wasn't aware we were even discussing Flash on the iPhone, but if we are, what's the point of such a discussion? Steve has already closed all doors to Flash and won't even allow converted Flash apps to run on Apple's mobile devices, so it's all more hypothetical than anything I'd like to waste time on. Besides, by the time 10.1 is out, the new iPhone will also be out, and if the rumors about it being powered by a modified A4 are true, it might be well above the limit for Flash 10.1. Again, irrelevant unless Apple does a 180 regarding the Flash matter.
And didn't I already say in my last response to you that I AGREE that Flash for Mac has sucked forever? And didn't I also explain (with my iPhone 3G analogy) why I think that's irrelevant now that the release of the first version that doesn't suck is imminent? If the Mac community put up with the crappy Flash for 15 years without ditching it en masse, I'm pretty sure they won't hold off installing the first decent version, unless they're all into S&M.
Again, if you are indeed an advocate of ditching Flash in favor of HTML5, it means you like to live in the future, which makes one wonder why you're so hell bent on living in the past when it comes to Flash? The only reason I can think of is convenience; 10.1 weakens the leverage for your argument so you simply dismiss it as vaporware.
I asked a columnist (WW) who writes a weekly pro-Apple blog about Flash on the iPad and iphone. He responded thusly:
"The main problem with Flash is that it doesn't reliably recognize touch gestures. So if you could view a Flash site on an iPhone or iPd, you wouldn't be able to control it and people would mistakenly believe the Apple product is at fault when it's really Flash that is at fault. Since most people can't tell the difference between a Flash site and an HTML or Javascript site, they'd wrongly blame Apple for Flash's limitations. Hence it's easier to block Flash completely rather than allow it to wreck the user's experience with an iPhone or iPad.
The problem with Flash lies with Adobe, but Apple would get the blame."
Is his statement correct?
"The main problem with Flash is that it doesn't reliably recognize touch gestures. So if you could view a Flash site on an iPhone or iPd, you wouldn't be able to control it and people would mistakenly believe the Apple product is at fault when it's really Flash that is at fault. Since most people can't tell the difference between a Flash site and an HTML or Javascript site, they'd wrongly blame Apple for Flash's limitations. Hence it's easier to block Flash completely rather than allow it to wreck the user's experience with an iPhone or iPad.
The problem with Flash lies with Adobe, but Apple would get the blame."
Is his statement correct?
He's correct about the interface issues (flash is built on the ability to differentiate mouse-movement from mouse clicking, whereas there's only one combined behavior on "iDevices" - the workarounds are fairly kludgy), though it's hard to guess whether "most people" would blame Apple vs. Adobe.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
So let me get this straight: Flash10.X is useless because it is a beta and not officially rolled out as a final release. But 802.11n and HTML5 are fine pre-release because you decided they were OK to adopt pre-finalization? So, we all just need to check with you to determine if a pre-release is OK to adopt or not. I did not know you were in charge of that.
First, if your comment was true and not just your own guess, having some of something is better than having none of something.
Second, given all the pain this has caused Adobe, I bet that if Apple asked for a highly optimized version of Flash "lite" that could run the bulk of Flash content on the web, Adobe would go nuts to significantly stall this bash train.
Nice. But in reality, it would make the iDevices work much better now for BUYERS of those devices (for example, Apple probably would have gotten my money again). Developers seeing where Apple wants to go and knowing (per such passionate arguments for HTML5 + H.264 + javascript) by people like you (the apparently expert on which betas should be adopted and which should not), will migrate their stuff toward the best future. That way, we can all still get to a web that might not have any "buggy", "sloppy", "Safari crashing 3 times", "nothing but ads", "nothing but video" Flash without sacrificing the experience of the present and near term future.
Not at all. They know exactly what they are doing. Flash suddenly being proclaimed bad is good for Apple's business (of making money). If an iDevice buyer can't have access to thousands of- say- Flash based games for free, maybe that iDevice buyer will buy some of those same games from the iTunes store. If an iDevice buyer can't watch a Flash-based e-learning course, maybe that developer will code a version exclusively for the iTunes store. That's all good for Apple revenues, at end user expense.But, then, I'm sure you know more about business than Jobs and the rest of the Apple team.
I guess you were with Apple's support of the book industry vs. Amazon so that we can all pay more for books as well?
Apple is great. I have a lot of their stuff. They generally do things very well, which is why I have a lot of their stuff. THIS is a wrong decision though. Apple should not decide such big things for its customers; there's less user impacting ways of getting such things done.
Consider this for example: if they would adopt eInk in iPad 2.0, they could make it thinner, lighter, "always on", and battery life would probably go up about 1000%. That's all stuff that Apple likes to tout for upgrades. To do so, they would need to just jettison a few other battery eating options like color, light, and smooth animation. So, if Apple decides to make "color" bad for battery life, do we all say, "you know, who needs color anyway?", "Die color screens die", etc?
When one gets so into Apple that all things Apple decides for them is right- even when its not- it might be time to step back and recognize that Apple is not God: they can- and do- make mistakes. Being able to recognize those mistakes is as good for Apple's business and blindly supporting everything they say & do.