Apple Opens Door to Hardware-Accelerated Decoding of H.264 Video in Flash

[macUser2007]

I have read about OpenCL in the Apple Documentation, it could technically do everything, ...

Really? Including stuff like GPU libraries for non-visual calculations, available in DX11 and even DX10 (for things like physics)?

It is a fact that Apple has been much more difficult than MS, when it comes to providing APIs. Apple has also shown much more disregard for its developers (we promise 64bit Carbon APIs (2006); (we killed 64bit Carbon APIs (2007)....)

Anyway, I am glad that Apple has cracked the door a little, even if it's only for H.264.

But I am also not holding my breath for more openness from Apple. This is just to make sure that H.264, which Apple is pushing and in which Apple is a patent-holder, runs well in the most popular plugin on earth....

 

[commander.data]

Really? Including stuff like GPU libraries for non-visual calculations, available in DX11 and even DX10 (for things like physics)?

OpenCL is specifically designed for parallel computing not related to visual calculations. It's DirectCompute that is more restrictive of the usage pattern since I believe it's still more tightly bound to the DirectX pipeline and was envisioned as a relaxing of shaders for broader applications.

It is a fact that Apple has been much more difficult than MS, when it comes to providing APIs. Apple has also shown much more disregard for its developers (we promise 64bit Carbon APIs (2006); (we killed 64bit Carbon APIs (2007)....)

Anyway, I am glad that Apple has cracked the door a little, even if it's only for H.264.

But I am also not holding my breath for more openness from Apple. This is just to make sure that H.264, which Apple is pushing and in which Apple is a patent-holder, runs well in the most popular plugin on earth....

In terms of openness, Apple developed OpenCL internally and then submitted it to the Khronos Group for industry feedback and ratification which seems like a pretty open move. Similarly, Apple developed WebKit2 internally to incorporate the split process model into WebKit similar to Google Chrome and is now releasing it into the Open Source community for improvement, but also providing it competitors like Google, RIM, and Nokia. Apple's investments in LLVM and Clang as replacements for GCC are also provided open source.

It really wouldn't be true to label Apple merely an open or closed company. They can be both, no doubt when it suits them or at least when it doesn't disadvantage them significantly, but I think that is true about most if not all companies.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Right, because hardware acceleration makes no difference whatsoever.

He never said that; the problem is that there are people like you who are claiming that all of Flash's problems can be traced all the way back to the lack of hardware acceleration. All the original poster pointed out was the fact that you can't place all of Flash's problems at the feet of the lack of hardware acceleration. The problem of Flash go back to the fact that it was a poorly maintained cross platform plugin where all the investment has gone into the Windows side with the *NIX/Mac OS X pretty much ignored until now.

I wish people like you would actually read peoples posts before assuming things about the poster that never existed in their original post.

 

[Queso]

Admittedly being late the thread this question may have already been answered, but it's my understanding that most of Apple's GPU choices all the way back to the HD2400 offer H.264 decoding in hardware. Surely if the API is there OSX just needs an updated graphics driver from ATI or Nvidia and this is enabled?

I certainly hope so. It would be nice to be able to watch BBC iPlayer HD content on my 2008 iMac without that noticeable frame lag.

 

[Anuba]

I wish people like you would actually read peoples posts before assuming things about the poster that never existed in their original post.

That's fantastic; now if only people like you would actually read the thread and realize that this misunderstanding has already been sorted, and that I've acknowledged about half a dozen times since then that the Flash Player for Mac has (or had) much bigger problems than the lack of hardware acceleration, I'm sure this would be a wonderful world.

But just to recap, since thick skulls are thirteen a dozen around here:

There are THREE issues with the Flash Player.

One is that it's always been poorly optimized, which has led it to perform poorly even compared to other non-accelerated software.

The second is that it's always been even more poorly optimized on Mac than on PC.

The third is that it never used hardware acceleration.


The 10.1 player addresses issues 1 and 2 pretty well. 10.1 RC2 delivers on Adobe's promises as far as I've been able to tell from testing it on Win7 and SL. And the story could have ended there, with a decent non-accelerated version with little to no performance discrepancy between OS X and Windows.

BUT: The Windows version now also has hardware acceleration (for video playback as well as vector and bitmap drawing), which gives the Windows version the upper hand again, in fact the difference in performance between the Mac and PC versions may now be larger than it's ever been before. It's all relative. If the Mac version gets a 100% performance boost but the Windows version gets a 200% boost (those are just hypothetical numbers for the sake of argument, in case someone was planning on asking for a link), Mac users will still be grumpy over getting the short of the stick. And it would have remained that way, had Apple not decided to open up the door for Adobe to use hw accelerated H.264 decoding.

Get it? Nobody's suggesting that hardware acceleration would solve all of Flash's problems, but those other problems have largely been solved in 10.1. But due to the Windows version also getting hw acceleration on top of the other improvements, there will still be a performance gap, and the only way to close *that* gap is hardware acceleration for the Flash Player on Mac.

 

[Bytor65]

No, Flash doesn't make any of that stuff. People make that stuff. And the same people will produce the exact same content if you take Flash out of the equation and replace it with Canvas/HTML5.

Ah, yes the old Guns don't kill argument re-purposed....

Flash for Interfaces:

Flash does inherently suck here. All flash interfaces I have ever seen suck. It isn't just the case of an inept few writing bad flash interfaces, it is a case of the tool that doesn't integrate well with HTML, it stands out like a sore thumb. It is a heavyweight, awkward solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Flash for web page interfaces is just bad idea, broken and disconnected from HTML.

Flash for Video:
It just became the dominant plug in for Video. That is all. Anything could serve this purpose. The only thing recommending flash is that it has market share.

Flash for Ads: Sure do keep this. So I can simply turn off flash and bye bye ads.

Flash for web games: Whatever. Don't care about cheesy web games.

---------------------------

Flash for ads/games/video can stay as long as they offer alternate for the Video.

Flash for interfaces must die. That is pure unadulterated garbage. Anyone building such interfaces, hang your head in shame. Running without a flush plugin shows me this is already on the decline. Apples stance will only accelerate this, so again I applaud them.

 

[Eidorian]

Admittedly being late the thread this question may have already been answered, but it's my understanding that most of Apple's GPU choices all the way back to the HD2400 offer H.264 decoding in hardware. Surely if the API is there OSX just needs an updated graphics driver from ATI or Nvidia and this is enabled?

I certainly hope so. It would be nice to be able to watch BBC iPlayer HD content on my 2008 iMac without that noticeable frame lag.

It looks like Apple is using libraries related to VDPAU which is an nVidia only resource. Unless you're really considering S3.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Flash for interfaces must die. That is pure unadulterated garbage. Anyone building such interfaces, hang your head in shame. Running without a flush plugin shows me this is already on the decline. Apples stance will only accelerate this, so again I applaud them.

Yes because car manufacturers (example) will have customers going head over heals with static images and video links to that have to be downloaded and viewed on the users desktop in quicktime lololol no.

BMW/Lincoln/Cadillac (example) have real flash designers or at least is paying some firm big bucks to create engaging experiences that make the customer feel like they're along for the ride.

HTML5...html5 isn't even finished yet lol.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it sucks.

 

[Zc456]

HTML5...html5 isn't even finished yet lol.

And yet... I can use the audio and video tags already.

 

[mcdj]

You, sir fail at life. Those are containers, not codecs.

People still say fail? Oh wait...teenagers.

 

[Anuba]

People still say fail? Oh wait...teenagers.

You're saying teenagers are the ones who are out of touch with current slang and colloquialisms? Okay*...

* = circa 1790

And yet... I can use the audio and video tags already.

Oh wow, the audio and video tags work! Two down, two million to go.

 

[Bytor65]

Yes because car manufacturers (example) will have customers going head over heals with static images and video links to that have to be downloaded and viewed on the users desktop in quicktime lololol no.

BMW/Lincoln/Cadillac (example) have real flash designers or at least is paying some firm big bucks to create engaging experiences that make the customer feel like they're along for the ride.

HTML5...html5 isn't even finished yet lol.

I didn't say anything about HTML5. You don't need HTML5 to not use Flash in your interface.

I visited those car pages. Lincoln and BMW served me clean flash free interfaces. Cadillac failed. But hey I am sure that is your average 60 year old Cadillac buyer wants, extra animations and flashy junk when he is trying to find out about a car....

 

[Anuba]

I didn't say anything about HTML5. You don't need HTML5 to not use Flash in your interface.

I visited those car pages. Lincoln and BMW served me clean flash free interfaces.

On their respective front pages, yes, but there's tons of Flash based material if you look deeper. It's the same at audi.com; no Flash on the home page but as soon as you click to look at a car e.g. the A1, you get a Flash presentation.

Some customers actually want rich multimedia presentations as opposed to dry, stale HTML with JPGs. It's the whole point of electronic media, that you can mix text and still images with audio, video and interactivity. It's what separates it from antiquated alternatives like newspapers and magazines. It's great that the internet offers lo-tech alternatives for luddites, but let it remain the lowest common denominator, don't force the Amish internet down everyone else's throat.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

It's great that the internet offers lo-tech alternatives for luddites, but let it remain the lowest common denominator, don't force the Amish internet down everyone else's throat.

LOL. I think the Amish can use the Internet so long as it's on someone else's computer (like they get car rides with other people and now even use electricity for certain things so long as it's battery powered (there's a WTF moment as if only AC is evil; maybe they'll buy electric cars).

As for Flash, if Apple had invented it, certain groups on here trashing it would instead be singing its praises and that's just a FACT. I take no stock in what certain people have to say as they are anti-everyone but Apple. If a browser uses its own dictionary instead of Apple's or doesn't use a specific Apple shortcut, it's EVIL. Nevermind if it's 100x more customizable and extensible. THAT does not matter. It doesn't look 100% just like Safari (a 99.9% theme isn't good enough or because it's not the default it doesn't count) and so it's AWFUL. WTF makes Safari so darn special? It's designed by Apple, of course, so it's wonderful!

Look at some other areas where Apple screwed up. The menu bar at the top of the screen is a prime example. It's great for single monitors that aren't too big, but go too high a resolution and you're constantly moving the mouse huge distances to access basic functions. Add a second monitor and you then have to move across monitors to get to the darn functions. Apple couldn't even offer an option for a second menu bar (and dock for that matter) for the 2nd monitor. OSX has been around how long now? Nearly a decade? It's had dual monitor support for how long? Tell me why they haven't addressed such an OBVIOUS shortcoming/problem. But I'd bet you that the fanboys on here will defend that menu bar until the end of time as the greatest thing ever (at least until Apple changes it to fix the problem) an then Apple just did the most fantastic thing ever once again!

I just get sick of hearing it. There's no objectivity with half the people on here. If something can be done better, it SHOULD be done better. Before Apple offered ANY (it's still not enough as they don't support enough GPUs) hardware acceleration it was all Adobe's fault. Now it's STILL all Adobe's fault. If Flash suddenly worked BETTER on the Mac than Windows, Adobe would be dear to the fanboy heart and they would be bragging to the Windows folk how much better OSX is than Windows. When OSX falls short (GPU APIs galore, for example), then suddenly it's "Macs aren't for gaming so who cares if DirectX does better". Or "Open GL is an open standard" (but where was the open standard cries when Apple tried to shove Quicktime down everyone's throats? Fairplay? Apple Lossless?) If Apple licensed DirectX (like they did Exchange) and gaming was suddenly more on par, they be shouting about how great Macs are for gaming, blah blah blah. Basically, if it sucks on a Mac, then that activity (like gaming) is a waste of time or is better suited for a console, etc. But if the Mac is good at it, then it's the best thing ever invented since sliced bread.

I like a lot of things better in OSX than Windows, but I can clearly see areas where OSX could be greatly improved. But instead of people trying to get some of those things implemented, they would rather defend the status quo because their god can do no wrong.

Flash exists. A lot of websites use it. Some of us would rather be able to just "work" on the Internet and not worry about what site is using what standard. Steve is choosing to deny you access to some sites to push his own agendas. Nevermind if they're not fully functional. It's like the lack of Blu-Ray. If Steve wants HD on iTunes, that's great. But he shouldn't be using the Mac OS to push iTunes. They should be separate. And iTunes isn't a full solution. You can only buy a couple dozen (mostly crappy) HD movies on there PERIOD (even if you're OK with 720p, etc.). So what's your alternative? Piracy? Some of us just want HD movies. Offer Blu-Ray already. Let the user have the Flash option on the iPhone/iPad. Let the customer make the decision....

 

[cmaier]

Look at some other areas where Apple screwed up. The menu bar at the top of the screen is a prime example.

A menu bar on the top of the screen is far superior to menu bars in each window. But, yeah, they need to do something about additional monitors.

 

[bengst]

...Flash has ALWAYS sucked and continues to suck, be it on Macs, Windows PCs or mobile devices.

ADOBE IS DEAD.

Ok, so Adobe is dead, no more Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, inDesign and PDF technology. Stop trolling with un-intelligent argument.

Also, hate or love Adobe, when ever I read someone saying, "Adobe is lazy," it makes that person look so bad. It truly makes it look like, "Daddy Steve said Adobe is lazy, and now we must repeat it over and over all over the internet." As soon as Steve said "Adobe is lazy," back in late January, I just new his big fans were going to repeat it over and over again weeks and months later. It's something that I notice a long time ago about Apple, release certain strategic quotes, and watch the really big Apple fans repeated over and over again. If it's a distortion of the truth, then it will soon become the truth in the eyes of the public.

Right! Excactly!

Just because we're fans of Apple (or the iCEO), doesn't mean we should say YES to whatever they come up.

Just because Steve said Adobe is lazy, that doesn't mean Adobe is lazy. That's really in-appropriate and mean for someone like him. Fanboys really happy using that out and repeat over-and-over again without ever thinking. Btw, Apple pausing on OSX 7 for now. Who's being lazy?

"Blu-ray is a_bag_of_hurt, Steve said so", but let's see when Apple supporting Blu-ray, teh mighty fanboi will say "It's about time!"

"Windows is just for gamers!", but never admit at how iPod/iPad becoming gaming devices themselves..

"Who need FM radio (or Camera) on iPod???" but then when Apple includes them, "It's about time!"

Remember one button mouse? Oh yes, Apple had that!

I don't get how people defending Apple but not really care for them. If there's something wrong, blame others. Blame AT&T! (I use iPhone3G other than AT&T but the 3G on iPhone still sucks compared to other devices!) not to mention bluetooth, useless.

I don't understand these Apple Haters! What part of Adobe Flash is proprietary don't yal understand? Apple is supporting open platforms: CSS, Java Script, H.264, HTML5,etc. Flash is 90's technology! Sure it's served it's purpose and will still have it's place in technology for sometime, but it's time we move on! Apple has done this once b4 when the first iMac did not come with a floppy disk drive. They rattled the tech community but "where is floppy now?"

fyi, I'm an Apple Lover and Adobe Lover. I (and most other professional designer/programmer/video enthusiast) don't hate them.

Why do you bashing Flash being proprietary? It is proprietary but at the same time ALSO open (mind you, Apple doesn't support them). Compare that to Quicktime! It's close, proprietary, and only great on OSX, so-so on Windows, very bad at Linux (oh, is there any Quicktime on Linux?)

Think 90's technology is BAD?? C, C++, Webkit, the internet, BSD is 90's too (if not 80's).

 

[Anuba]

A menu bar on the top of the screen is far superior to menu bars in each window. But, yeah, they need to do something about additional monitors.

Would you also prefer the Safari bookmarks bar to be at the top of the screen? Seeing as it's a menu bar of sorts with drop-down menus, like the main Menu bar, I'm guessing you want it as far away from the content as possible? Of course you wouldn't. Menus and toolbars should be at the shortest possible distance from the content/document/workspace area.

The only "superior" thing about a menu bar that's detached from everything it's related to, is that A) Mac users are accustomed to it, and B) Apple wants it that way and therefore it's automatically accepted as superior to all alternatives, without question.

It's a relic from the 80's when screens were so small (like the 9" Mac Classic) that arranging windows in stacks or tiles was pointless. Whichever document you were working on took up the whole desktop and thus the position of the menu bar made sense at the time. Well, we have 30" screens now, sometimes two of them, and the only reason why the Jurassic Menu lingers around is foolish pride. Ever so often, the better solution to a problem evolves in the Windows universe – like mice with multiple buttons and a scroll wheel. But rather than simply adopt these conventions, Apple bends over backwards trying to figure out a way to borrow the PC solution yet conceal it somehow, in order to make it look like they invented something unique. So they design crap like the Mighty Mouse, which *has* two mouse buttons under the hood (plus three more), but it still looks like the old single-button mice, and instead of a scroll wheel they designed a silly little ball that stops working after a month unless you put it upside down on tissue paper and roll it around (which may or may not help).

Apple's menu bar solution is not logical, not intuitive, not convenient, it's user error prone (you often discover you're on the wrong application's menu, usually Finder, due to accidental clicks outside an application window), and it wastes screen space rather than save it. On Windows you have the Taskbar which is a combo of the Dock and the right hand side of the Menu bar. On Mac you blow both the top and the bottom (or one of the sides) of the screen. Menus on applications in Windows can sometimes take up extra space, but they often use available space, like on Adobe's CS4/CS5 and iTunes. If you check out iTunes for Windows you'll find that the menu is up in the left corner of the main iTunes window which isn't used for anything on the Mac, ergo iTunes for Mac uses more screen space since it needs the Menu bar in addition to the main window.

"Blu-ray is a_bag_of_hurt, Steve said so", but let's see when Apple supporting Blu-ray, teh mighty fanboi will say "It's about time!"

It's only a so-called "bag of hurt" because there are licensing fees involved. They'd have to pay Sony/Philips/Panasonic. Apple wants a share of everyone else's money (carriers, record companies, app developers, TV networks, movie studios etc), but God forbid Apple should ever have to pay anyone.

Apple doesn't support open platforms and standards because they're open, Apple supports them because they can be used free of charge.

 

[Bytor65]

On their respective front pages, yes, but there's tons of Flash based material if you look deeper. It's the same at audi.com; no Flash on the home page but as soon as you click to look at a car e.g. the A1, you get a Flash presentation.

Well I guess they need to fix that if they want their info visible to Apples dominant mobile internet platform.

Some customers actually want rich multimedia presentations as opposed to dry, stale HTML with JPGs. It's the whole point of electronic media, that you can mix text and still images with audio, video and interactivity. It's what separates it from antiquated alternatives like newspapers and magazines. It's great that the internet offers lo-tech alternatives for luddites, but let it remain the lowest common denominator, don't force the Amish internet down everyone else's throat.

It's odd that I never meet any of the Flash lovers IRL. Everyone I know hates flash. But I am not against have a flash alternative there for those who are attracted to shiny/flashy/blinky things.

I just want clean access to the info, thank you very much.

 

[Anuba]

Well I guess they need to fix that if they want their info visible to Apples dominant mobile internet platform.

Well I guess they don't care. Web stats for iPhone and iPad show that they account for 0.76% and 0.04% of all web surfing. Considering that content providers are happy to drop support for old browsers when they drop below 5%, I doubt they're losing sleep over 0.8% not being able to view *some* of the content. Get back to Audi when iPhones/iPads hit 5%.

It's odd that I never meet any of the Flash lovers IRL. Everyone I know hates flash. But I am not against have a flash alternative there for those who are attracted to shiny/flashy/blinky things.

Why would anyone be a "Flash lover"? 6 out of 10 can't even tell Flash and HTML content apart. The fact that it's Flash is entirely irrelevant, what matters is the content. YouTube uses Flash to deliver its content, does everyone you know hate YouTube? Do they also hate CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox and Hulu since they stream their content on the web using Flash? Do they hate all online games that can be played on Facebook and such?

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Well I guess they need to fix that if they want their info visible to Apples dominant mobile internet platform.

lol get out of here with that. Besides , again, many car manufacturers have accommodations for iPhone (dunno about iPad) viewers. VWs website for iPhone looks very well done, but of course it doesn't offer the full experience. On the full site, each cars respective gallery is built in flash, but the mobile version offers just a taste.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

A menu bar on the top of the screen is far superior to menu bars in each window.

How do you figure? Just stating your opinion without any supporting argument doesn't say much. The only thing I like about it is that I know where to look really fast (i.e. it's position is fixed). But there's a detriment to that too and that includes sometimes the wrong application is selected when working between multiple windows or if a program suddenly activates a window. Suddenly you find that you are not in the menu you thought you were in. And like I already said, it's fine for monitors up to about 22" (i.e. my PowerMac is using a 22" monitor" at 1680x1050, but it starts to feel more annoying on my 24" monitor at a full 1920x1440 as the distance to the top of the screen is starting to get to be too far to be truly comfortable. I understand the "feeling" that the menu bar is "comfortable" because I came from the Amiga and it too had a fixed menu bar at the top of the screen so it felt "familiar" when I got my first Mac. OTOH, I had a hack installed on the Amiga so I could access those functions from a right-click pop-up menu precisely because it was faster to access functions when they're closer to where I'm already working.

The thing is that if Apple would just start accepting the fact that some people like to have configuration options to customize the GUI to their preference, monitor setup, etc. and start offering options along those lines, these issues would go away. I should be able to choose between a screen based menu bar or window based menu bars for my setup. I should be able to choose to extend/duplicate the menu bar and dock to a second (or more) monitor(s). Heck, I should be able to choose between Aqua and Grey appearances, if not have a full blow theme manager. Steve is fixated on consistency instead of customization. There's something "off" about that given Macs are supposed to be for more "creative" people than Windows machines. What could be less creative than forcing people to have identical looking GUIs?


On another note, I wonder if those of us that do not have the latest integrated GPUs need to start a letter writing campaign to Apple to get them to add support for H264 hardware decoding to other GPUs that SHOULD have such support (such as the 8600M GT). Even the Intel GMA 500 has some support for hardware decoding (Adobe just added it for Windows decoding, enabling cheap Netbooks to decode 720P video with little CPU use). There is simply NO EXCUSE for Apple to ignore such recently used GPUs when they have the capability in them. In fact, the slower/older the model, the more important that support should be. Apparently, it sometimes takes a lot of complaints to get Apple off their lazy butts.

 

[cjmillsnun]

This is good news. It will be a long time before we'll see online video go all-native. (Too much tied into copy protection, interactivity, overlays, etc..)

The bad news;

"available on Mac OS X 10.6.3 and later with Mac models equipped with the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M."

New computers and OS only....

Doesn't cover the ATI on the 27" iMac

 

[cjmillsnun]

Because Apple doesn't support developers the way MS does. Not that it's all entirely Apple's fault at all but...if Flash runs great on one platform, and blows on another, and the company that makes it says they would love to improve it on the poor platform, but the owner won't give them the ability...well...what then?

That doesn't answer the Linux question. Flash sucks on there too, and you can pretty much do what you like with Linux.

 

[cmaier]

Fitts Law. Menu on top is much larger mouse target. Less physical and mental effort.

How do you figure? Just stating your opinion without any supporting argument doesn't say much. The only thing I like about it is that I know where to look really fast (i.e. it's position is fixed). But there's a detriment to that too and that includes sometimes the wrong application is selected when working between multiple windows or if a program suddenly activates a window. Suddenly you find that you are not in the menu you thought you were in. And like I already said, it's fine for monitors up to about 22" (i.e. my PowerMac is using a 22" monitor" at 1680x1050, but it starts to feel more annoying on my 24" monitor at a full 1920x1440 as the distance to the top of the screen is starting to get to be too far to be truly comfortable. I understand the "feeling" that the menu bar is "comfortable" because I came from the Amiga and it too had a fixed menu bar at the top of the screen so it felt "familiar" when I got my first Mac. OTOH, I had a hack installed on the Amiga so I could access those functions from a right-click pop-up menu precisely because it was faster to access functions when they're closer to where I'm already working.

The thing is that if Apple would just start accepting the fact that some people like to have configuration options to customize the GUI to their preference, monitor setup, etc. and start offering options along those lines, these issues would go away. I should be able to choose between a screen based menu bar or window based menu bars for my setup. I should be able to choose to extend/duplicate the menu bar and dock to a second (or more) monitor(s). Heck, I should be able to choose between Aqua and Grey appearances, if not have a full blow theme manager. Steve is fixated on consistency instead of customization. There's something "off" about that given Macs are supposed to be for more "creative" people than Windows machines. What could be less creative than forcing people to have identical looking GUIs?


On another note, I wonder if those of us that do not have the latest integrated GPUs need to start a letter writing campaign to Apple to get them to add support for H264 hardware decoding to other GPUs that SHOULD have such support (such as the 8600M GT). Even the Intel GMA 500 has some support for hardware decoding (Adobe just added it for Windows decoding, enabling cheap Netbooks to decode 720P video with little CPU use). There is simply NO EXCUSE for Apple to ignore such recently used GPUs when they have the capability in them. In fact, the slower/older the model, the more important that support should be. Apparently, it sometimes takes a lot of complaints to get Apple off their lazy butts.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Flash is the -only- browser-independent multi-platform solution that actually works.

*cough* Silverlight *cough*

And MS actually made quite a good implementation of Silverlight on OS X, and they publicly supported the Moonlight project to get silverlight working on Linux.

Lets see, MS can do it, and they make more products than Adobe.