Adobe has fired back at Steve Jobs after the Apple boss allegedly attacked Adobe Flash for being "buggy" and referred to the Flashmakers as "lazy." "I can tell you that we don't ship Flash with any known crash bugs," Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch wrote today in a back-and-forth with commenters on an Adobe corporate blog, "and if there …
yes, but they manage to stop serving to Linux and OpenSolaris on x86-64 with flash 10, not to mention breaking Opera intigration in OpenSolaris...
So on Linux and OSOL it's not infiniately less effecent!
It is funny to see so many people, who have no clue of what they are talking, repeating like parrots what was pushed down their throat -HTML5 will be "magical", flash is evil- as a sorry excuse for not supporting flash.
If flash is badly supported over the Mac -dunno, even less who to blame- it is the duty of Apple to facilitate a fix rather than launch a ludicrous propaganda for its horde of subdued and servile cultists...
"If flash is badly supported over the Mac -dunno, even less who to blame- it is the duty of Apple to facilitate a fix"
And just how are Apple supposed to "facilitate" a fix of software that isn't theirs? Let's see now, they could reverse engineer the code and get sued for squillions, or they could chuck a flipping enormous bung at Adobe and say "pleeeeeez".
Are you *really* suggesting that the correct response to a load of shit is to reward the authors in the hope that they'll deliver rather less in future?
Flash & CPU
Flames, 'cos that's how my laps feel after watching a youtube video.
The reason Flash hogs the CPU
The guy that heads up the Linux Flash team has been taking it in the neck over the CPU hogging and in a blog post gave a good explanation of why it is so, compared to playing raw videos. Mike Melanson has been a long-time contributor to the ffmpeg project before he joined the Adobe Flash Linux team.
"The Flash Player solves a different problem than your favorite video player."
He goes on to explain that because of the need to combine video with vector objects, fonts and other elements, Flash cannot simply blit its output to the screen or make use of pure hardware decoding of H.264 and the like.
A video player does: encoded video data > decoder >YUV > window
Flash player does: encoded video data > decoder > YUV > YUV-to-RGB > RGB > Blend-Flash-elements > browser window.
The key aspect here is the blending step.
For 'just' video streams therefore the player has to be prepared to do blending but it isn't used, but prevents any optimisations for 'movies'.
A further issue for the Linux player currently is his belief that H.264 video can't be hardware-decoded using VAAPI/VDPAU since those APIs can't decode to a memory buffer. Others have pointed out that belief is incorrect, so it is possible if that information is followed up the Linux player may see some useful speed increases for H.264 decoding.
It has also been pointed out that the blended elements could be made into GPU textures in the YUV colourspace, which would allow much of the blending operation to be hardware-accelerated on suitable systems.
So, in terms of performance I think there are two issues people who complain need to understand:
1. It isn't fair to compare playing an FLV video in a standalone player with it being displayed within a Flash applet since the applet could contain elements that need to be blended into the video image (these aren't like simple on-screen-display overlays).
2. There are several areas where the Flash applet could be made much more efficient which would reduce CPU usage on many modern systems with hardware support.
@TJ1: very interesting but...
Thanks for the insight, it's very informative. But doesn't this just prove that Flash isn't the best solution for video? Perhaps native video support in the browser would be better, like what HTML5 is trying to address but not succeeding very well because of the codec arguments?
Also, has anyone measured Silverlight video performance between OS X and Windows? Does it exhibit the same issues as Flash?
flash was indeed buggy for me
All I can say for sure is the /only/ time I've had a problem with my Macs (1 Air and 1 Pro) it boiled down to a problem with the flash plugin that was killing both Safari and Firefox. Apple said it was a Flash problem, Adobe help never responded. Eventually after rolling back and rebooting the problem disappeared, never did get a real resolution.
Well, sure Flash sucks, specially on >6 or 7 year old computers like mine. But there are Flash apps and Flash apps. Some run without a hitch and smoothly even on my netbook. Others...
An important part of the problem is the designers making the damn animations. Some make the thing to be as visually annoying as possible, but that's a different discussion. The problem is the ones that require "programming". Well, of the few graphic designers/ web people I know (3 or 4, not many, I know, but still), all usually say they can't program beyond getting someone's code off the web and trying to make it work on their own page. My girlfriend is one such designer. I hope she does not start messing with Flash...
Flash got so popular because it made it easy for people with very little (or none) coding knowledge to do complex graphical things on a webpage. Now, is it surprising that the things can be CPU intensive and behave unpredictably? How is that saying about making things foolproof only to reckon with very ingenuous fools again?
So if this is true.. then...
Well when I read this i had a thought...
"and if there was such a widespread problem historically Flash could not have achieved its wide use today."
So by his logic Windows has achieved its widespread monopoly because it has no widespread problems? 500,000 viruses is, therefore, not a problem>
HA HA HA HA!
(Joke Alert because the logic is just so funny!)
"So by his logic Windows has achieved its widespread monopoly because it has no widespread problems? 500,000 viruses is, therefore, not a problem"
Just because people break into your car doesn't mean your car has problems it just means there is something to gain in doing so, Microsoft do an excellent job at releasing software for thousands of different hardware designs with awesome legacy support. Despite people and their tall poppy syndrome issues.
Flash has brought an incredible amount to the web. By the sounds of things mac support could use a lot of work but considering that impacts relatively nobody, really who cares?
I see at least two people don't like your humour.
Adoobie: Flash crashes Explorer on XP too
At work, we run XP Pro on a corporate network with over 8000 clients. This system is locked down tighter than Fort Knox, permitting only a tiny subset of Windows applications to be run - because Windows is so brittle - our IT department's excuse anyway. That kind of voids the whole notion of the superiority of the "infinitely larger = better" Windows ecosystem. Whether the IT department's excuse is true or not I don't know. I suspect they probably don't know their arse from their elbow however.
Anyway, if Internet Explorer is going to crash on our system, you can bet your life a page will have some Flash crap loaded. First the current window becomes unresponsive, then all Explorer windows become unresponsive, then the entire system becomes unresponsive and then the machine does its best impression of a Jumbo Jet throttling up. Good old CTRL+ALT+DEL to kill Explorer fixes everything. Well, kills the problem anyway - and takes out the web apps we use.
As far as I can tell, Flash doesn't do anything particularly useful and beneficial in my browsing activities on either Windows or Mac and would rather live without it's flakiness.
A BIG FAT FAIL for Adoobie.
If you're Adobe...
.. surely you call Apple's bluff and kill flash on Mac?
See how long apple users can go without it?
I would :)
The other one is you've just shown your hand to Adobe, Microsoft and Google (you know, those people you keep slagging off) - who all have more seats on the tech comitties of the w3c, so why /wouldn't/ they drag html5 out to 2054 at this point?
Plus are we really moaning about Adobe when 95% of Mac users are Adobe <product> using graphics people? Come on...
If you kill flash on the Mac, people might just manage without it. (Plenty already do.)
If you try to kill HTML5 by filibustering the W3C, people might just go ahead and implement it without official blessing, which in legal terms would probably mean without any proprietary codecs. (Firefox certainly will.)
No, sir, the problem with calling someone's bluff is that they might not be bluffing.
Mac users running Adobe apps
...are the most aggrieved constituency of all - we're the ones that pay Adobe's eye-watering prices and put up with their piss-taking upgrade strategies and almost complete lack of bug fixes. Adobe are living up to every stereotype that characterises the monopolist. Jobs has a massive ego, but he's also an astute judge of his peers. He called this one correctly.
call Apple's bluff and kill flash on Mac?
Kill flash period!
So go ahead punk, make my day!
Call whose buff? Get real.
W3C matters not. What Adobe does developers will follow - what MS implement as HTML5 will be HTML5. Firefox matters little either. The thought of Adobe even having to filibuster made me smile.
Standards folk have always hated Flash because it didn't play fair - it delivers what people wanted not what is good for them, it evolves fast and keeps pace with technology. If the Standards bores had done their job, Flash would have stayed a small proprietaty vector format, instead of filling the RIA gap - and if developers stuck with Standards it would still be the previous century on the Web.
Its about standards not Standards - W3C long since lost influence on the former.
I wish they'd kill Flash on XP too
Oh wait, they did, they just haven't admitted it yet.
Or is it, Flash killed XP. Either way, lots of killing going on, lots of crashes on Flash based websites even on fresh Windows XP SP3 fully patched systems.
If Adobe pull the plug
If Adobe were to pull the plug on Flash support on Mac that would mean they would be pulling the plug on the Mac version for Flash Professional... Therefore all those Flash Coders using Mac's would be forced to :-
A. Become Windows users
B. Find an alternate to Flash
What a dilema... I think the graphic designers revolt would be such that Adobe's bottom line might get hit hard.
Mac is poor relation at Adobe
Vast majority of Adobe sales (80%+) are for Windows versions. Can't imagine anyone coding full-time in Flash would put up with the crappiness of the OSX version, its full of legacy code and slow as hell compared to the same hardware running the Windows versions which are ground up rewrites with each release.
Flash is a Boated Memory Hog. Everyone know this. That's all there is to it.
@A/C Posted Friday 5th February 2010 08:07 GMT
Ahh poor teeny weeny AC.
Do your big nasty IT department stop you from going on MyTwatFace and watching YouTube during work hours on a work pc...ahhh didumbs......there there.....
Here try searching for this term.
"Anger Management Courses".
Here is a little hanky, wipe those eyes..oh look a kitten....there isn't that better....
"and heck they can't even bothered to add multitasking capabilities.. "
It's perfectly possible to multitask on an iPad or an iPhone. It's just a common misconception that you can't. Unless your software is approved by Apple then it will stop producing audio when you switch to another app.
If you need a demonstration of multitasking then I suggest you play a song in the "iPod" application and then switch to Safari. Notice how the music is still playing? Just because the screen is hidden, doesn't mean the application is closed.
That is all.
"Whenever a Mac crashes..."
Hold the phone! Macs crash?!?
Surely not. </sarcasm>
...but when a Mac crashes it's Flash's fault. When Windows crashes because of Flash, it's the underlying Windows code that's at fault. Apparantly. Go figure.
I agree Adobe should kill Flash on the Mac, too.
I agree Adobe should kill Flash on the Mac, too. Then I wouldn't have to install a Flash blocker in Firefox (well, I'd still need to install it on my Windows machine).
Flash has it's uses, but 99.999% of the time it's abused by lazy shit-ass so-called web 'developers' creating web sites that are about as fun to navigate as having lava injected into your rectum.
Funny how I have no problems with all the sites I visit despite having a Flash blocker. I guess Flash isn't so essential to a pleasant web experience after all.
I wish someone would kill flash with a spade and bury it for life on mac's, then less flash sites would mean less flash for everyone and would mean I dont have to install the flash plugins into my otherwise lovely linux boxen so my wife can use her forums etc which depend on the steaming pile of turd and detect flashblock/noscript..
killall -9 npviewer.bin , please, forever...
Macs, of course...
Make up such a massive percentage of the browsing public, so obviously killing Flash on Macs would make such a MASSIVE dent...
Paris, well she uses flash...
Seeings a Mac is the platform of choice for the majority of web designers!
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
Killing Flash on the Mac would make it unavailable to the designers that produce much of the world's Flash content. The Mac is still the predominant platform for creative uses.
I remember the old days. Back then we were all using 14,400 dial-up and had slow cpus and hardly any ram, disk space or colour depth. But we could still download mucky film clips of lasses whose clothes were all in the wash.
What do we have today? On the one hand the youngsters are downloading those modern DVDs off Norwegian 'Bytestorrent' sites and playing them on their wireless-telephones and digital watches, and on the other hand Adobe reckon it takes massive computing resources to show a cartoon character swearing.
There's summat wrong somewhere.
that right apple
piss off enough people they just gonna hit back and you better make sure you can f'ing swim ...
just imagine google you tube meeting
Apple dissed us right ...
and they cant use flash right ...
Fuck em lets keep flash video players ...
Once again I need to remind the majority of posters here that 99% of people browsing the web DO NOT GIVE A FUCK about CPU cycles, buggy code, etc etc etc. All they give a shit about is that they have a browser that allows them to visit YouTube, watch porn, play mindless fucking games like dinner dash and visit the latest crappy reality tv show website and be dazzled by cool animations or whatever.
They rightfully expect that they can do all of this on any web enabled device and on any browser. If it doesn't allow you to do this, then it aint allowing you to browse the internet (yes Kristian B I said "internet" because that's what the majority of the word calls it you pedantic little prick).
If the i-Pad doesn't let you do this, they aren't going to say "oh, that must be because of the issue with CPU cycles" they're going to say "what the fuck???" - unless they are small dicked little fanbois quoting from the gospel of Jobs.
Put simply as of right now, the iPad does not allow you to enjoy all of the web and the almighty saviour of HTML 5 isn't there either. And for that, I (being one of those 99% or webtards) wont be buying one.
..the iPad isn't aimed at the "penniless webtards" demographic to which you and 95% of the rest of humanity belong. So go piss up a flagpole.
Sometimes you have to look in the mirror
"Put simply as of right now, the iPad does not allow you to enjoy all of the web and the almighty saviour of HTML 5 isn't there either. And for that, I (being one of those 99% or webtards) wont be buying one."
Put more simply, as of right now the iPad does not allow you to enjoy anything because you can't buy one yet.
And if you're technical enough to understand that it doesn't have flash and what that means, then you aren't really one of the 99%.
Personally I think many of the things Adobe does are useful (flash, pdf, etc.), but I think Adobe are completely the wrong company to be doing them, over the years the various runtimes and viewers have become bigger and more unstable without adding any value to me as an end user.
They really need to decide if they are going to be cross-platform or not and spend some time getting the various products in line and stabilised if they are, right now it's a complete mess.
Another reason to "hate" Adobe - no CS4 support for case-sensitive file systems.
Well, I was going to join in and moan about my browsers reliably crashing because of Flash in Safari (Mac) and Firefox (XP), but it seems everyone else has done it for me, which is handy! I would just like to add one thing though. I don't know what planet Adobe have been living on, but CS4 Dreamweaver prevents itself from installing on my Mac with a case-sensitive file system. This is complete madness and the only good reason I can think of is that they are just lazy. So I've found yet another good reason to steer clear of Adobe.
Try Coda or Espresso, both are chuffing marvellous little development apps. They don't do WYSIWYG as such, but then that one of the biggest problems with things like Dreamweaver and Expression (which is actually a decent Web IDE) IS that they allow WYSIWYG development. Hand code it baby!!!
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Apple (née Computers) Inc has recently shown that it can live without developers . Apple is too popular and it's no big deal for developers to change. Now Apple (née Computers) Inc has shown that it doesn't need Adobe. In fact, Apple (née Computers) Inc has *never* needed Adobe.
I wonder who's next: Microsoft , possibly Apple's most important partner? Keep watching and find out.
Remember Apple, you are too big too fail. You have never almost failed before and such a thing in the future is unthinkable.
 Curse Steve Ballmer. I can't write the word anymore without the mental image of Monkeyboy coming to mind.
 Although if Apple did go under, where would Microsoft get its ideas for its new products from?
Re: Footnote 
Er, Google? Seems to be where they're getting most of 'em from right now.
Disable Flash in your browser and see how little you miss it!
The lack of Flash on the iPad is one of the things that put me off slightly so I tried an experiment: I disabled the flash plugin on my browser. The first thing I noticed was the increase in load time for most webpages - much better without all those crappy ads. The other thing I noticed was how little I missed it. A few red X's where there was embedded video and that was it.
Flash is rubbish and I won't miss it at all.
PRO TIP: Install flashblock. Then you get the improved page load times and the option to only enable flash content that you actually want to see.
I'll give it a go.
Question of semantics...
Sorry to be a pedant, but did you mean *deacrease* in load times, which means an *increase* in performance?
No, you're not a pedant...
...that was badly written!
I meant to say that load times decreased.
If Apple is being inundated with Safari crash reports with a stack trace landing up in the middle of Flash, Adobe can't excuse itself by saying, "we don't ship Flash with any known crash bugs". If that statement is true, i.e. they don't know about the bugs, it only points to the fact that they aren't testing rigorously before shipping. While I appreciate that this kind of testing can be expensive, you can't expect to hold onto a huge proportion of the marketplace indefinitely without it.
what about silverlight mr jobo?
if Adobe pull flash from mac, Silverlight will take its place...
Flash is a dog, and doesn't deserve the foothold it has.
They need to completely re-write it from the ground up, and if they did they might come up with something as well-optimised as Unity3D.
Smaller file sizes, better compression, way nicer development IDE, real 3D, here and now, and it even has a FREE version.
No known bugs because of so little known testing
"I can tell you that we don't ship Flash with any known crash bugs"
Easy to do when you hardly test your products.
Adobe needs to learn proper structured testing methods. Don't just test the code under normal vanilla circumstances, but after upgrades and patches, real world type consumer situations.