HTML5 still doesn't really have the ability to replace interactive advertising and games though. This is the area that flash is being used the most these days.
I find all this discussion about Flash crashing Macs funny. I have two MacBooks and over 50% of my browsing is with streaming video and I almost never crash - ever. And, in regards to the battery drain...it's the same as running PhotoShop or iMovie or another program.
I just wanted to note the irony.
You do realize I was responding to a post about Firefox for Maemo? The two quotes have nothing to do with each other. But I guess you didn't bother to read them and just wanted to try to make yourself look supreme.
I find all this discussion about Flash crashing Macs funny. I have two MacBooks and over 50% of my browsing is with streaming video and I almost never crash - ever. And, in regards to the battery drain...it's the same as running PhotoShop or iMovie or another program.
I find all this discussion about Flash crashing Macs funny. I have two MacBooks and over 50% of my browsing is with streaming video and I almost never crash - ever. And, in regards to the battery drain...it's the same as running PhotoShop or iMovie or another program.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Most consumers won't miss interacitive advertising and most flash games won't work with a multitouch interface anyway.
Your personal experience does not change the fact that flash is the number one source of crashes on a Mac.
...never once have I seen a Mac in the store crash.
I can sort of see your point, about it being no different than photoshop and what not.
The difference is that you expect your system to be strained when editing a picture, or movie. You DON'T expect it to be strained while browsing the web and coming across a site with multiple flash ads, which it sometimes would do.
It crashes the browser and brings up the crash report log, not the entire OS. Also, your anecdotal observations hardly outweigh the aggregate of all incoming crash reports from the totality of Mac users sending them in.
I know how apple feels about Flash on the Iphone/Ipad but if it's such a problem and it's so buggy - why do they allow their macbooks, imac's etc to use it?
I love the new Ipad and I am going to pre-order but I can't believe 100% it's an issue of stability. It has to be a reflection of money being made in the app store right?
Macbook, Macbook Pro, Imac (any OS10 Mac product) = Flash good to go.
Iphone, Ipad (both use the app store) = Flash too unstable.
Seems like they are feeding us a load of bs.
That's a pretty progressive idea actually. At the end of the day Adobe make their money on the content creation tools, not the code it ends up as. The best thing Adobe could do is probably create a HTML5 animation and game-creation suite.IMO, Adobe's best path forward, if they want to help the web advance instead of holding it back, and they want to be relevant to web media in five or ten years, is to build that tool. Adobe has extensive in-house SVG experience and would be almost uniquely positioned to do it. Conceivably they could even modify Flash to output SVG + JavaScript instead of generating SWF files.
But have you seen these reports or are you just taking the word of a business man who clearly has an agenda to sell apps?
Serlet didnt name any specific guilty plugins. Just plugins. But during the week at WWDC, I confirmed with several sources at Apple who are familiar with the aggregate Crash Reporter data, and they confirmed that plugins was a euphemism for Flash.
I'm also not saying it doesn't happen, just that myself and everybody I know who use Macs have not had it happen very often.
I wasn't trying to look supreme. I'm trying to take part in a discussion. I realize what your posts were about. I was pointing out the logical inconsistency in your statements.
For HTML 5 you only want to talk about currently. When responding to current problems with Flash, you bring up a future version of Flash.
And where is this fact coming from? Just because Steve Jobs told us this doesn't mean it is true. Anybody can fudge those types of numbers.
Has anybody ever thought that maybe it is Safari or OSX that is part of the problem.
But animation is animation and it will always be cpu intensive regardless if it is through Flash, Shockwave or HTML 5. Some may be slightly more lean then others but a HTML 5 full of banners is still going to eat up the cpu.
Um, I was pointing out why it was removed from a release candidate build.
There were no inconsistencies except ones you are trying to fabricate.
I love the direction HTML5 is headed, so I don't see what you are talking about.
You might have meant to point that out, but you never actually got around to it.
I responded directly to the post and even quoted it. Or did you not actually read my post?
This is why Adobe is working on flash 10.1 for mobile devices. It will be in almost every mobile browser except mobile Safari by the end of the year.
Where did you point out "why it was removed from a release candidate build"? The quote from Mozilla explained why it was removed.
Uhm, I quoted the post that said why. I didn't need to say it.
Again, you try to make a correlation that didn't exist between two unrelated posts of mine.
Well, when I view a 720p HTML5 video my CPU is at 20-30%, with Flash it's at 50-60%.
At fullscreen HTML5 is just 50-60% while Flash is 70-80%.
Which type of media would YOU prefer to view?