Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hahahahahahahaha!

I can imagine old Steve foaming on his mouth talking non-sense and general ******** while at the same time, in the real world, things like this are happening:

FLASH ON NEXUS ONE! --- > http://theflashblog.com/?p=1781

Steve go retire for the sake of all of us please!

:D


EDIT:

By the way, did Steve or any one of you wonder, why Flash crashes Safari on the Mac and it never crashes Firefox!?!?!

LOL!

Perhaps Steve should be fixing Safari instead of talking poo...

Flash crashes on Firefox in Linux and Mac OSX.

How about when I get my 3GS and you get your Nexus one, I'll make us a Javascript video script. A repeat of HTML5 video for the iPhone and Flash video for the Nexus one. See who lasts longer in terms of battery.

Oh wait, you wouldn't actually buy a Nexus One.
 
This is EXACTLY what is needed. Smooth animation with little CPU usage.

<ahem>

Right.... Viewed in Firefox 3.6, updated OS 10.6, on my Mac Book Pro 13" 2.53, the Flash works great. The HTML5 is stutters terribly - unwatchable.

Flash crashes on Firefox in Linux and Mac OSX....

No, it never has for me, in Mac OS 10.6. See my specs above. It did crash in Safari, but so did Java.
 
I switched res to 1600x1000 and it went down to 370%.

In firefox (3.6), its around 400%

So my theory is that it will utilize all CPU power to get the smoothest possible animation. There are certain flash ads I've encountered that did this, the one with a lot of particle based vector animations.

It's smooth on my Mac. I can compare it to my PC, which is an i7 920. But HERE's what I noticed. When I get the windows about the right size on both my PC and Mac, they both uses about the same CPU usage per core(thread) and since my PC has 8 distinct threads, it's overall CPU usage shows up as higher -- If I reference the graphs. But the animations are booth smooth.

Anyways, it's a full frame animated plasma effect running on the CPU. It runs as I'd expect. Now if it were static, I'd be concerned. :)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.6; en-us; Archos5 Build/Donut) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)

MorphingDragon said:
Hahahahahahahaha!

I can imagine old Steve foaming on his mouth talking non-sense and general ******** while at the same time, in the real world, things like this are happening:

FLASH ON NEXUS ONE! --- > http://theflashblog.com/?p=1781

Steve go retire for the sake of all of us please!

:D


EDIT:

By the way, did Steve or any one of you wonder, why Flash crashes Safari on the Mac and it never crashes Firefox!?!?!

LOL!

Perhaps Steve should be fixing Safari instead of talking poo...

Flash crashes on Firefox in Linux and Mac OSX.

How about when I get my 3GS and you get your Nexus one, I'll make us a Javascript video script. A repeat of HTML5 video for the iPhone and Flash video for the Nexus one. See who lasts longer in terms of battery.

Oh wait, you wouldn't actually buy a Nexus One.

He doesn't have to get a Nexus One. Flash is coming to the Android platform so any Android phone released that he wanted could have flash. ;)

Nexus One, Droid and Dell Mini 5 have already been demoed running Flash.
 
Come on..., you are a lawyer, got to have better reading comprehension than that....

The point was, that Apple is helping publishers drive the price up.

Speaking of reading comprehension, hello pot, it's me kettle. In any market where there is only one (sizable) customer, the customer can determine the prices. Now there are two customers - the science of economics tells us what happens in that case.

Further, only the prices of certain new books will be higher and only in a certain time frame. The agency model gives the publishers the flexibility they want to reduce the price over time in order to increase sales, something Amazon doesn't allow.
 
I hope Apple kills flash.

I hope Flash kills Apple. OK, maybe not kill, just severely wounds it. I've been an Apple lover since the days of the Apple II+ (I learned to program in BASIC on that machine) and I've purchased untold numbers of Apple products over the years. But I'm also a Flash developer and I love the platform, so I'm of conflicted loyalties. I recently chose an Android phone over the iPhone mainly because I'm tired of being hemmed in by Apple's closed-loop world. I've also grown weary of Apple's schtick and of Jobs' insane arrogance. I still admire Apple, but I no longer love the company.
 
Speaking of reading comprehension, hello pot, it's me kettle. In any market where there is only one (sizable) customer, the customer can determine the prices. Now there are two customers - the science of economics tells us what happens in that case.

Further, only the prices of certain new books will be higher and only in a certain time frame. The agency model gives the publishers the flexibility they want to reduce the price over time in order to increase sales, something Amazon doesn't allow.

Hey, as you say, "the prices of certain new books will be higher and only in a certain time frame." But, the bottom line here is, "the prices of certain new books will be higher."

BTW, there are a number of players in the market, including Barnes&Noble, which is hardly a minnow. Despite Jobs' chest-beating, I am not so sure the iPad will become a sizable player in the ereader market

Plus, didn't Jobs declare a year ago, that "Nobody reads anymore?" Just like now he tells us that Flash is gone.

I was actually ready to buy an iPad, until I found out that Flash is missing....

... I've been an Apple lover since the days of the Apple II+ (I learned to program in BASIC on that machine) and I've purchased untold numbers of Apple products over the years.... I've also grown weary of Apple's schtick and of Jobs' insane arrogance. I still admire Apple, but I no longer love the company.

Unfortunately, I feel the same. Jobs, the former visionary, has become another buffoon like Donald Trump, but maybe worse.
 
Are you on Snow Leopard? Snow Leopard runs slower because Flash is spun off into a separate process in 64-bit Safari.

10.1 doesn't do very much at all to "video performance." At least not the betas they have put up thus far. I can verify this because my hulu looks almost identically choppy in 10 vs 10.1. Only a slight improvement.

Yep, I'm running 10.6.2.

What kind of Mac are you using that it's choppy?

I don't have a problem with Hulu on my notebook's screen, nor my HD 30". I can't run some of my demos smoothly at 2560x1600 , but upscaled HD videos do quite well for relying mostly on the CPU. 10.1 made a noticeable difference for me in the browsers, because with FP 10, 720p YouTube vids hit the fans hard prior to 10.1.

I upgraded not even 2 weeks ago to 10.6.2, because Safari under 10.4.11 became a buggy piece of vomit with each 4.xxx update from Apple. The performance in Flash is the same from what I can tell. My projects still idle less than 1% with FP 10.1. The current app I'm building still stays below 20% when it's doing its heaviest task and promptly idles back down to next to nothing when done.

Here's an article from Anandtech about 10.1, they also noticed a good improvement;
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3678
 
Yep, I'm running 10.6.2.

What kind of Mac are you using that it's choppy?

I don't have a problem with Hulu on my notebook's screen, nor my HD 30".....

I just tried Burn Notice from Hulu, 480p (HD) in Full Screen on my 24" Apple monitor at 1920x1600. Latest OS 10.6, with non-beta Flash, in Firefox 3.6.

Smooth as silk :) As opposed to the HTML5 demo I posted about above, which chokes my Mac Book Pro.

So much for HTML5 is panacea.....
 
Yep, I'm running 10.6.2.

What kind of Mac are you using that it's choppy?

I don't have a problem with Hulu on my notebook's screen, nor my HD 30". I can't run some of my demos smoothly at 2560x1600 , but upscaled HD videos do quite well for relying mostly on the CPU. 10.1 made a noticeable difference for me in the browsers, because with FP 10, 720p YouTube vids hit the fans hard prior to 10.1.

I upgraded not even 2 weeks ago to 10.6.2, because Safari under 10.4.11 became a buggy piece of vomit with each 4.xxx update from Apple. The performance in Flash is the same from what I can tell. My projects still idle less than 1% with FP 10.1. The current app I'm building still stays below 20% when it's doing its heaviest task and promptly idles back down to next to nothing when done.

Here's an article from Anandtech about 10.1, they also noticed a good improvement;
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3678

24" (white) iMac. 2.16ghz C2D w/3GB RAM Nvidia 7600GT 256MB GPU

I used to be able to play Hulu fullscreen in Leopard. Now that I've upgraded to SL it's never worked.
 
So what Jobs is saying, is dump Flash now for a standard which isn't ready for a device which hasn't been released yet.

I think I'll wait to see how rich HTML5 solutions perform first hand, before proclaiming it as our savior from Flash.

I still think developing for HTML5 could be a pain; since there are likely to be differences between the HTML5 engines in every browser, whereas everyone is using the same Flash plugin.

Yes, HTML5 will be a pain to develop for if you are still using a text editor. Not so much if we use full featured mature web development environments.

I'm not sure if you are arguing for or against html. Sure, a closed proprietary authoring tool (Flash) that runs in it's own player will be easier to author, but you must realize that you are not making a web site, your making a Flash site which is not part of the web/internet/html standard, it is only an extra - that should never be required of a user to have on most normal web sites. Use it all you want, so many people do, but Flash developers are not creating web content; only Flash content. I don't know of a single web browser that can render Flash content without additional non-web browser software.

It's a chicken and the egg sort of problem which many of us have seen from the beginning, recognized, steered clear of, or at least attempted to avoid. I have needed to tweak content so it's renderable in multiple browsers to make a client or two happy just like every one else, but I felt really dirty afterwords every single time.

This is a problem we create for ourselves by ourselves. Way too many of us have done this (some more than others) writing non standard html for specific browser features and not writing code to the spec; which is in fact the solution. If the code, written to spec, does not work in Browser X. Stand strong argue against it to your clients; we must not capitulate. If it's the fault of Browser X, then F**K Browser X and make them fix their own problem themselves and let the site be broken (and if you can, add a comment on that page to shame that Browser at the same time so your users know the bug is their Browser and not your site).

None of us would put up with a bad software compiler that requires us to write non standard language code in order for our compiler to compile it correctly. We would find an updated one without the problem or revert to a older version without the problem. Yes, it's hard to argue to clients, as each user in the case of the web chooses their own compiler (Web Browser), but it needs to be done. Only write to the html spec, that's how we'll get ourselves out of the pickle.
 
Yes, HTML5 will be a pain to develop for if you are still using a text editor. Not so much if we use full featured mature web development environments.

I'm not sure if you are arguing for or against html. Sure, a closed proprietary authoring tool (Flash) that runs in it's own player will be easier to author, but you must realize that you are not making a web site, your making a Flash site which is not part of the web/internet/html standard, it is only an extra - that should never be required of a user to have on most normal web sites. Use it all you want, so many people do, but Flash developers are not creating web content; only Flash content. I don't know of a single web browser that can render Flash content without additional non-web browser software.

It's a chicken and the egg sort of problem which many of us have seen from the beginning, recognized, steered clear of, or at least attempted to avoid. I have needed to tweak content so it's renderable in multiple browsers to make a client or two happy just like every one else, but I felt really dirty afterwords every single time.

This is a problem we create for ourselves by ourselves. Way too many of us have done this (some more than others) writing non standard html for specific browser features and not writing code to the spec; which is in fact the solution. If the code, written to spec, does not work in Browser X. Stand strong argue against it to your clients; we must not capitulate. If it's the fault of Browser X, then F**K Browser X and make them fix their own problem themselves and let the site be broken (and if you can, add a comment on that page to shame that Browser at the same time so your users know the bug is their Browser and not your site).

None of us would put up with a bad software compiler that requires us to write non standard language code in order for our compiler to compile it correctly. We would find an updated one without the problem or revert to a older version without the problem. Yes, it's hard to argue to clients, as each user in the case of the web chooses their own compiler (Web Browser), but it needs to be done. Only write to the html spec, that's how we'll get ourselves out of the pickle.

I hear ye on this one and in an ideal world HTML standards would be implemented without any compromise, but I think it's a bit conceited of you to feel that you should be able to dictate to your customers what technologies they use. Who do you think you are, Steve Jobs? :rolleyes:
 
... Sure, a closed proprietary authoring tool (Flash) that runs in it's own player will be easier to author, but you must realize that you are not making a web site, your making a Flash site which is not part of the web/internet/html standard, it is only an extra - that should never be required of a user to have on most normal web sites. Use it all you want, so many people do, but Flash developers are not creating web content; only Flash content. I don't know of a single web browser that can render Flash content without additional non-web browser software.

Uhm, who cares about your definition of a "standard."

If Flash is used by virtually every computer in the world, on every platform, then for most of the sane people it is, in practice, a standard.

... Only write to the html spec, that's how we'll get ourselves out of the pickle.

Knock yourself out - if you want your product to look like Web 1991 (or Web Lite, which is what you are going to have on the iPad).

But please, let the rest of us, the va-a-a-ast majority, enjoy our full web experience, including the rich Flash sites many of us like.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

I do hope those complaining about the un-openness of Flash and the open format that is HTML 5 are just as passionate about the Open Document Format and Open Office.

We don't want to be using proprietary formats produced by iWork and Microsoft Office do we now?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

I do hope those complaining about the un-openness of Flash and the open format that is HTML 5 are just as passionate about the Open Document Format and Open Office.

We don't want to be using proprietary formats produced by iWork and Microsoft Office do we now?

Since customers, courts, government agencies, clients, partners and bosses accept and provide only .doc/.docx files, we have little choice.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

I do hope those complaining about the un-openness of Flash and the open format that is HTML 5 are just as passionate about the Open Document Format and Open Office.

We don't want to be using proprietary formats produced by iWork and Microsoft Office do we now?

They aren't mutually exclusive. Supporting an open web format and choosing to use a closed office format.
 
The Flash-haters will conveniently ignore this. Until there are ACTUAL AUTHORING TOOLS equivalent to Flash CS* available for graphics/animation professionals who use Flash ALL THE TIME for content such as this, I'm going to pay very little attention to this HTML5 craze.

Hence the reason why I'd like to see Apple offer HTML 5.0 authoring tools AND tools to convert Flash calls into the equivalent HTML 5.0 calls.

Jobs calling for the phase-out of Flash is one thing, but until Apple offers development tools to make that leap forward, nobody is going to make that leap forward. Maybe Apple will redeem themselves at WWDC 2010 by offering such a development system.
 
Hence the reason why I'd like to see Apple offer HTML 5.0 authoring tools AND tools to convert Flash calls into the equivalent HTML 5.0 calls.

Jobs calling for the phase-out of Flash is one thing, but until Apple offers development tools to make that leap forward, nobody is going to make that leap forward. Maybe Apple will redeem themselves at WWDC 2010 by offering such a development system.

OMG YES!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.