News - Adobe CTO fires back at Flash battery life claims

[HEXUS]

Exec not happy with Apple’s attitude as spat over Flash rages on.

Read more.

[aidanjt]

He can be unhappy all he wants. The claim is still true. Flash on Linux/OS X is a giant steaming pile of bloat and waste.

The CTO even brought out independent studies showing that Flash was, in fact, more efficient than HTML5 when it came to video-playback.

Which studies? Which methodologies did they use? Saying crap like this is misleading at best, blatently lying at worst.

The fact remains that using the flash plugin to playback video and ads results in 100% core usage on Linux and OS X. I don't recall HTML5 playback consuming anything close to that.

[mikerr]

In depth:
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.c...-depends-.html



But basically flash uses less CPU than HTML5 when running on windows.

Under linux or OS X, the situation is different, due to lack of direct access API features,
but (sorry have to say it) those are minority OSes with less than 15%

[BullDogg]

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives..._new_tests.php

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/web...ws-media/13176

Hilariously, though, both of those show that - as you point out - Flash is pretty awful under OSX and Linux. He's not wrong in saying that it's more efficient under Windows, but the whole spat is about OSX...so he kinda shoots himself in the foot there.

[TheAnimus]

yes and no, its terrible under OSX because OSX is terribly hard to get hardware acceleration accomplished on. I mean if Apple had put Safari hardware acceleration on OSX before Windows Apple might have a chance, but the fact its not even production code yet on OSX and has been for a few months on Windows....

Obvious solution? Run a more developer friendly OS?

[aidanjt]

Under linux or OS X, the situation is different, due to lack of direct access API features

Oh? Even if VA-API didn't exist, it doesn't mean flash has to consume that much CPU time. Other software playback mechanisms don't use nearly as much CPU time.

[mikerr]

Flash also isn't just a video container.

From a developer POV you can rely on your flash content being available across all browsers and platforms,
HTML5 support is spotty at best (especially when you look at anything other than pure video).l

[Spud1]

The tests linked here also show how much the browser matters here - Chrome's HTML5 performance is appauling..even with the later beta's. They may have higher compliance but the efficiency is right down in the dumps.

So it's not really a fair argument or comparison yet when flash has had years and years to develop, whereas HTML5 is not even a final standard at the moment.

I guess he had to come back with something but at the end of the day, flash is still horrible and inefficient, regardless of the alternatives being developed.

[itslate]

This is all getting a tad childish. Apple are the ones digging their heels in to make a point on this one. Just makes them fit the "fanboy apple elitist fetish" club that they've made for themselves. So what if flash is the end of battery life as we know it. If consumers want it then they will find a way to use it. Be it not an apple device. If apple don't want to support it, then let them. It doesn't seem to be hampering their sales of devices so they shouldn't care, but all this tit for tat and backwards and forwards is just a load of bad press for both parties. It's doing my nut in. Feel like banging their heads together and telling them to just get on with it. It's starting to sound as bad as the house of commons.

[TheAnimus]

I guess he had to come back with something but at the end of the day, flash is still horrible and inefficient, regardless of the alternatives being developed.

And?

So what if it is incredibly expensive in resources, it is still a better option than the alternatives for most people who are using it, how they use it.

If people are so upset about flash and performance, they would all be using Silverlight or even HTML5 (thou as everyone admits its not really ready yet, because of a lack of clients...)

[usxhe190]

Flash is crap but at the moment, I still need it because everyone still uses it. End of.

[aidanjt]

Why do people think there's a dichotomy between Flash and HTML5 anyway?

href linking directly to the video file will let the browser load a plugin for video file handling, or start an external player. Or you can embed the system player in the page. All valid options which work just about everywhere and uses software which doesn't waste cycles like they're going out of fashion.

[badass]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't HTML5 currently unfinished?

[aidanjt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't HTML5 currently unfinished?

Yup. It's still a draft standard.

[TheAnimus]

Why do people think there's a dichotomy between Flash and HTML5 anyway?

href linking directly to the video file will let the browser load a plugin for video file handling, or start an external player. Or you can embed the system player in the page. All valid options which work just about everywhere and uses software which doesn't waste cycles like they're going out of fashion.

I thought that this was about battery life when doing 'normal' browsing, a site even like Hexus forums has flash adverts that are animations.

Who is actually running with a hardware accelerated HTML5 client right now? (ok actually I've started to have IE9 on all my Win7 boxes at home, but I don't actually use it much...)

So right now, a site like hexus is faced with three options, Flash, Gif Animations, Static Content.
(I'm not even going to pretend silverlight is a viable option, despite it been my personal favourate out of all these technologies, its simply much more elegent than HTML5!)

I'm fairly sure for most websites those are in order of preference from the advertiser therefore its how much money they will get. When I'm on my stupidly over powered for web browsing desktops I would personally rather burn that extra 1W or less (because you know, I run a proper desktop OS, with HW acceleration) and let hexus have the extra few fractions of a cent, hey it all adds up and I'd sooner keep the adds down to a few flash ones, than a boatload of static ones to pay the bills.

Now Apple can either work with Adobe, as Microsoft have or they can just throw their toys out of the pram and dictate which way the market should go. Regretabbly I think its the latter.

As an intresting asside if anyone has a 'spare' Android phone, I'd love to know the difference in battery life between browsing with flash on, and with it off.

[Funkstar]

Now Apple can either work with Adobe, as Microsoft have or they can just throw their toys out of the pram and dictate which way the market should go. Regretabbly I think its the latter.

I wonder how all this arguing between Apple and Adobe will affect the Adobe creative suite. The way Apple is structured now, I wonder who would loose more. Would Apple suffer without Adobe apps, or would Adobe be hit hard by not being on Macs?