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.
CBS.com Prepping HTML5 Video Playback for iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not Apple. If they can't make it work, they just say we are going to use HTML5...... Now, if HTML5 was used in most places..., we would be happy.
Other than the fact that the current version of Safari doesn't support fullscreen and that HTML5 video chews up 63% of CPU vs its flash counterpart using 51%. So yeah, I see a problem.
Thanks for your help but I'll just wait for Safari to catch up.
You have a problem accessing Apple's website? I don't understand the comparison.
I get 30% CPU.
Plan to source yourself or are you just going to try and get yourself out of this troll hole by digging some more?
It is great that CBS decided to lead the way here. This is a good indication that other content providers (wanting to catch up with CBS) will start offering their content in HTML5 as well. So...we may not need Flash after all. 
RE: http://waterlife.nfb.ca/
that site is strong work. you're clearly bias if you can't see the affective beauty and interactivity of this site.
VNC or RDP to some server or PC in the closet. That's how I currently view Flash sites, if I absolutely have to, from my iPhone. Will work even better from the larger iPad. VNC and RDP app vendors will clean up.
In the future you will probably be wrong.
Bingo.
Even if HTML5 progresses at a crazy-fast rate, flash will still be the standard in online interactive media for at least a few years.
With this said, I can't see Apple giving in. Many of the apps from the iTunes store could easily be replicated with flash online. This is probably the key reason that Apple is refusing it, as it is allowing them to make huge sums of money and attract third-party developers to Xcode.
Having said this I applaud Apple and CBS for encouraging something that is open source and has great potential.
Take a look at the attached screencap.
- See the CPU usage?
- See the lack of a fullscreen button?
Why don't you show me what your CPU usage is with flash on Firefox running the same video? Anybody care to show me HTML 5 chewing up less CPU vs flash while running the same video/resolution? I haven't seen it.
While you're at it, show me how HTML 5 on OS X is more efficient than flash on Windows with hardware acceleration. Show me HTML 5 running HD video using 10% CPU or something substantial enough to warrant giving up flash.
As far as I'm concerned, why should I even care about HTML 5 if it's still nowhere near as good or efficient as flash on Windows? Why won't Apple allow hardware acceleration for flash on OS X? The "most advaced OS" won't allow 3rd party hardware acceleration? You've got to be joking.
As an end user, I couldn't care less how content is delivered as long as I have access to said content. Giving up access to content as prevalent as flash is downright silly. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised here with all of the Apple shills poo poo'ing flash, blu-ray, mms, HDMI, etc. etc.
.
This is what I get First I played the large HTML5 version, then I popped out the window to get the Flash version and scaled it up to the same size as the large HTML5 window. Which takes less CPU?
I have no idea how you're getting 7% CPU. I'm drawing 6% CPU just activating the Dashboard, surfing with one tab open on macrumors and nothing else in the background. That can't be right considering your flash CPU usage is right in line with mine.
Even that other guy was getting 30% CPU on HTML 5. I get 45% CPU on flash in that same video and 65% in HTML 5 with spikes up to 80%.
Huh? What? Perhaps the worst analogy I've read on the board. What does this have to do with the discussion?
Ohhh wait. You're trying to be funny/clever. Got it.
Especially when they hear that the people who can't use their web site in its current form are trendsetters and people with money.
BS. Apple is more focused on exceptional user experience than anyone else in the market. Their experience (and the experience of most people who approach it with an open mind) is that Flash is bad enough that it's impossible to reconcile 'good user experience' with Flash on miniature mobile devices, so Apple choose 'good user experience' - in line with their recent history.
If Adobe were to get off their butts and write a decent version of Flash for mobile devices, Apple might very well include it - although the chances of that are declining every day.
It's rather interesting that Adobe's response to all of this has never been "we'll work on creating a better product". Instead, they've done nothing but throw around more FUD. They're going to lose.
My bad …those numbers weren't from the 720p feeds ..they were both 360p (they are still a valid comparison, though)
Here are the numbers from the 720p videos. (64% Flash, 24% HTML5 …that bump of CPU on the left of the Flash CPU screen is the HTML5 I ran immediately before it.)
Wow that is so mature of you! what an intelligent reply! God forbid I want to do something other than watch a video on youtube at the same time i'm ripping a movie in handbrake. If you can't get it through your head playing a single video file playing in my web browser shouldn't make all my processors run @ 40% when I'm just on an intro page.
Certainly you must be using a very old computer as that would be the only reason that html5 takes more cpu on your machine than flash.
I mean I don't want to let facts get in the way of your opinions but maybe you can check out these videos and then tell us how bad html5 performs
http://blog.jilion.com/2010/01/25/introducing-sublimevideo
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/flash-player-cpu-hog-or-hot-tamale-it-depends-.html
the 1st linked video full screen used max 10% on 1 of 8 processor on my i7 iMac at home. I used a Quad core Mac Pro at work which was what my previous screen shots were.
Where do you keep getting your facts from? I've not seen that on Safari at all more facts for you buddy!!! click on the attached images if you don't mind FACTS!!
again you've been proven wrong, html5 plays better in Safari and is on par with flash on windows. Again don't let FACTS stop you
Attachments
Simple1, for someone who doesn't know how to browse a website you're awfully vocal about this topic.
Attachments
sure, depending on connection speed it may take time. 5 - 10 seconds to load a site of this quality that you'll spend 20+ minutes browsing is rather forgivable. ISPs, especially those in North America, have been blamed for stifling internet innovation for years. currently, it's not much of a stretch to compare Apple to these ISPs.
Any person with reasonable deductive skills would see that if the poster and I had similar CPU usage for flash that we should have similar results for HTML 5. Where are your numbers for flash? Good to see you're still trolling after I posted my source.
That's still weird why I'm seeing much higher numbers. Are you running the latest Safari with nothing else or running some other webkit build?
Certainly you're wrong. I'm using an early '08 Macbook Pro. Hardly old.
The first link ran like crap. The second link proves my point (more on that later).
Prove it. Show a screencap of your activity monitor.
I posted the screenshot of my activity monitor. That's straight up fact. Not too hard to comprehend?
What are you trying to prove with your static shots of webpages?
Wrong! You want facts? How about a quote from the 2nd link *you* posted:
Turning full circle, if Anand is right, and I don't doubt that he is, Apple complaining about Flash being a CPU Hog while not exposing "the appropriate hooks" to enable Adobe to access hardware acceleration seems disingenuous at best. Flash's ability to access hardware acceleration in 10.1 [on Windows] dramatically reduced Safari's CPU consumption from 23.22 to 7.43, a drop of 68%, which really makes you wonder how Flash would perform on the Mac if it could access hardware acceleration.
So HTML 5 in Safari was at 12.39% and flash on Windows was at 7.43%? LOL. Did you even read the article you posted? Oh yeah, Firefox with flash on Windows was at 6%! That's *half* of Safari/HTML 5 in case you didn't know.
How do you like those *facts* now?
5-10s. What are you on!? It took a 2m+ to load then crashed safari!
(It was pretty until it crashed though)(I know it took more than 2 minutes because the song I only just started finished.)
5-10s. What are you on!? It took a 2m+ to load then crashed safari!
(I know it took more than 2 minutes because the song I only just started finished.)
i'm on a basic 5MB connection running Safari 4.0.5 in Snow Leopard. 2008 24" iMac 2.8GHz C2D with 2GB ram. Also, i've got Safari running in 32 bit mode (for Divx Plugin support - us Canadians don't get Hulu so i rely on NinjaVideo). the Waterlife site runs very smoothly for me.
[EDIT] i cleared the cache and retimed the load. for me, it actually takes just under 14 seconds to launch. the music starts before loading is complete.
Dude Basic?
Most overseas countries, the majority of broadbad is 1MBS theoretical max.
i may have wrote that incorrectly, i often get them confused. what i have is (up to) "5M/800k": i download 550kb/s, which is pretty lame.
there's lots of new government initiatives in some countries (canada NOT included
) to increase broadband speeds that would allow rich internet technologies like Flash, HD video streaming and online gaming to truly prosper.here is a screenshot showing speed averages by country from speedtest.net (schools and corporations are ignored)
