back to article Steve Jobs Flash rant put to the test

When Steve Jobs badmouthed Adobe Flash to The Wall Street Journal, he said it was buggy, littered with security holes, and a "CPU hog". It's hard to argue with the first two, but a new study claims the Apple cult leader was wrong about the hog bit. According to tests from the Streaming Learning Center - an online media …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But maybe not in Firefox

    There is a possibility that the flash add-ons for Firefox cause 100% cpu use at intervals of a few minutes.

    1. JS Greenwood

      +1

      For once, I'd give Saint Steve the benefit of the doubt and go with this interpretation of it... Flash in Firefox suddenly turning the CPU into a 100% utilised, toasty hot l'il thing is an hourly occurrence. Guess that might come under the "buggy" heading, though.

      As much as the desire not to let any new development platforms on iDevices that might have non-Jobsian revenue models attached to them irks the hell out of me, I'll happily support the torture and killing of Flash.

  2. Alien Doctor 1.1
    WTF?

    My ID my ID my kingdom for a title

    I suppose Jobs thinks he's the new Al Gore?

    WTF? Well, WTF?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      WTF?

      WTF are you talking about?

  3. Peter Cooper

    But how good is the codec?

    I assume this is the same codec itunes uses to display videos too. iTunes regularly takes 10-20% CPU utilization on videos that VLC plays with 0-1% utilization. Do Apple need to optimize this maybe? Or is the VLC one lower quality. If they used the VLC codec in Safari they might have far better performance.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      RE: But how good is the codec?

      "What you talkin about Willis?" The standard hasn't been decided on yet!

      It's unlikely that it's going to be the codec used to play videos in iTunes since those codecs are, for the most part all 3rd party (on my machine at least)...

  4. Ed Vim

    Nonsense

    That original Streaming Learning Center article is getting way too much online attention. The author did a limited test and posted simplistic results. Comparing Flash to HTML5 in a performance benchmark test at this time is pointless. Of course Flash will do better in selected platforms with hardware acceleration support, Flash has had years of well funded development to mature, HTML5 has not. Once there is more adoption of HTML5 and its developers get similar time and financing, THEN do the kind of tests Streaming Learning posted.

    The most obvious omission in that article is it focuses solely on statistics, but leaves out the Big Picture. (...and anyone who has any familiarity with statistical analysis knows how easy it is to manipulate results simply through omission.) HTML5 will certainly catch up performance wise, but the real issue is the massive software patent problems we in the U.S. have crippled the Internet with. Blind acceptance of Flash simply because it's the dominant web video technology won't solve the problem, it just hampers progressive development overall.

    1. Marty
      Stop

      more nonsense

      you obviously do not understand how the market place works...

      when choosing any product for any function you choose the best their is at that time. Why would you pick an inferior product just because its new and may or may not get better?

      When a new product comes to market it MUST have something to offer in the way of an improvement to the current products. It doesnt have to be better in every respect but it has to offer somthing.

      only a company with money to burn will bring a product to market and keep it there because they have the money to waste if it is inferior to current products, knowing it will be improved on in later releases (original xbox anybody).

      1. chr0m4t1c
        Stop

        Apparently you don't understand either

        "when choosing any product for any function you choose the best their is at that time. Why would you pick an inferior product just because its new and may or may not get better?"

        Because "best" is often subjective and people don't have unlimited budgets. Why would you drive a Fiat when a Ferrari is "better"?

        And if you have a Fiat would you also buy a Renault or a Ford just because they were slightly better at a given task, or would you continue to use the Fiat?

        The problem with "the market" is that if one player gets too big with a product that's incompatible with all the others then people start buying it simply because it is the biggest and all of the other players get pushed out - look at where MS was in the 90s or IBM in the 70s/80s.

    2. Naughtyhorse
      WTF?

      title goes here

      Maybe we read different articles, but the one i read says that blind assertions were being made with *no data* to back them up. And these assertions were to the effect that flash was a CPU hog when compared th HTML5 *AS IT IS NOW* years of development (or bloat and cross platform incompatibility as it is more correctly known) do not enter into the picture.

      steve 'mad as 2 balloons' jobs said flash was a resource hog. he was wrong, get over it. HTML5 uses less cpu resource as it is able to shift the load to the GPU - Duhh!.

      Also the article does point out in it's opening and closing sections that it is a purely statistical approach, it's hard to take a non stats based approach beyong pointing out that jobs has clearly lost the plot, and everything he says needs to be taken with a gargantuan pinch of salt.

      This big picture you speak of, is it anything to do with your consumption of apple flavour koolaid perchance (i-koolaid)?

    3. Mike Flugennock

      Also, I've noticed...

      ...that the site in question -- Streaming Learning Center -- seems to have a lot invested in seminars and training for streaming video based on Flash. They even have a banner ad on their home page advertising seminars in Flash-based video streaming, so I'm taking the whole experiment -- which, surprise surprise, concludes that Flash isn't all that bad -- with a very large grain of salt, if not the entire mine.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    Flash should be killed

    just because of the use of flash adverts - everyone hates them...

    and under linux, it uses more CPU than controlling the LHC

    1. AndrueC Silver badge
      Joke

      Ah ha!

      They use Linux to control the LHC? So that explains it.

  6. Robert Hill
    FAIL

    ..the buggy bit...

    the security bit...and, most important of ALL - the entirely owned by ADOBE bit, whom have shown themselves incapable of reliably porting Flash to 64-bit browsers natively....on little, minor-market players, like, say IE...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      RE: ..the buggy bit...

      You'd think the developers would be able to:

      1, remove the bloody bugs that keep crashing it

      2, port it to 64 bit browsers

      Of course, it could be that they've either lost the source code or lost the only programmer they had who understood the source code. Whatever the reason, it's just another nail in flash's coffin - the sooner it dies a miserable lonely death, the better.

      1. James Butler

        Not a fan, but ...

        I'm not a Flash fan, but I feel compelled to point out that Flash, itself, is not a bad technology, any more than C# is a bad technology. Both can be used to create crappy, system-crashing work when in the wrong hands. Similarly, both could be used to create awesome, deliciously-high-performance work when in the right hands.

        So unless Flash has been crashing your browser even when all the file contains is a blank canvas, which would point to Flash itself as the culprit, please try to remember that it is the DEVELOPER who programs the crap ... it's not the tool they use to do it with.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Adobe & 64 bit

      It's not just flash. Premier Elements & Photoshop Elements - the most current versions are not supported on any Windows 64 bit plaftorm.

      I don't think they have the capability - they may have taken over Macromedia and then lost all the talented staff. Or, as Jobs says, they might just be lazy.

      Note - where is Silverlight in all of this - has it died ? Aside from access to Microsoft and Bill Gate's sites (including the upcoming iPlayer competitor), I can't see a compelling reason to install it (don't know if a 64 bit version is available)..

      1. Peter Kay

        They probably don't see the commercial advantage

        PS CS4 does support 64 bit, so it's not as if they can't do it. Elements is a lower end product, so therefore less likely to need to support more than 4GB memory. The lack of 64bit support could also be a sales tactic to encourage more CS4 sales..

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Competition is good

    The biggest problem is the only Adobe bit, because they are the only ones who can make improvements and they have proved very slow that it in the past.

    With an open standard like HTML5 everyone can make improvements. Hopefully there will be a race like with Javascript to show who's browser can render it faster. All this competition also pushes Adobe to get off their lazy ass and improve flash.

  8. Heff
    Badgers

    here's a theory

    Jobs is blocking flash for iPhones and iPads because it'd open security holes on those devices. Its not necessarily flash he's worried about, but opening a well-documented, well-used exploitable hole in an OS that historically exploiters dont really go balls-deep for.

    The biggest problem with homogenisation in computing is the same for nature : eventually a virus comes along and eats all your stuff. Diversity, virtually guaranteed on the motley frankenOS of a windows machine, is verboten on apple devices. homogenisation is king, which essentially leaves them with a time bomb waiting to go off.

    So when you put flash on an iphone, everyone who uses flash to sploit goes "hand me that SDK book, it cant be that hard to branch out". Apple does just fine with security when everything is developed at their end and approved by them, sticking some foreign code on their beloved little devices gives them the fear because when apple is faced with lolznewsploit, it takes them _forever_ to fix it.

    1. James Foreman
      Coat

      Re: here's a theory

      I'm not entirely sure how you can be arguing that the wonderful diversity of windows is what makes it so virus proof...

      Mine's the asbestos jacket that I'll be wearing while the army of Windows and Mac fanbois shout about who's got the worst security.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Your theory is rubbish

      "Diversity, virtually guaranteed on the motley frankenOS of a windows machine, is verboten on apple devices. homogenisation is king, which essentially leaves them with a time bomb waiting to go off."

      Umm, hardware is more diverse on a windows machine, I can agree with that. The rest of your post seems to imply that you think hardware diversity somehow equates with OS diversity. It doesn't - windows users all still use windows, regardless of hardware. (Hardware diversity does nothing to close up all the horrible security holes in windows either but that's another story...(

      The reason Steve Jobs doesn't like flash is simple - it's a stinking turd that won't flush away. It has the potential to crash your browser (if it doesn't just lock it up) and it seems to be used mostly for annoying ads. It's blocked on my home computer and apart from iPlayer, I haven't activated any flash for over a year. I haven't missed it one bit!

      "Apple does just fine with security when everything is developed at their end and approved by them, sticking some foreign code on their beloved little devices gives them the fear because when apple is faced with lolznewsploit, it takes them _forever_ to fix it."

      That's right - Apple don't let anyone develop for the iPhone or for OSX. They've never let anyone develop any software for any of their platforms ever because they don't want a "lolnewsploit"

      (If only there was an icon for "you really don't f***ing understand what you're talking about"!)

      1. Heff
        Boffin

        good god, make some intuitive leaps here

        my point was that if one kernel-level sploit works on an iPad, through flash, it'll work for all iPads. my point on diversity was that hardware is diverse, but so is the client base : everyone is running XP/Vista/7. sure. but half of those are running non-MS Antivirals and firewalls, and a sizeable proportion dont use Outlook, etc etc. ad fucken nauseum.

        Ipad says here's Safari. Ipad says here's the OS. You make a good sploit or a woim or a trojan or whatever piece of blackhattery you like for a windows system, you cull a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of machines. Good job. You sploit yourself into an Ipad, congratulations, you can probably sploit them all.

        and they let lots of people develop for their platforms, using their SDKs, and vetoing things calling functions they dont like.

        so, once again : The hardware is all the same. The browser is all the same. the OS is almost guaranteed to be the same. you put something that makes your device look bad _and_ is a giant security hole on it, and you end up running around with an entire hardware generation of ipads that brick themselves.

        Im sorry you were unable to fill in the blanks yourself.

    3. DrXym

      No

      Jobs is blocking flash on the iPhone and iPad because it means people can access rich interactive content without paying Apple for the privilege. If there is "an app for that", chances are there was already a functionally equivalent Flash app somewhere that did it for free. Except iPhone users will never be able to use them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Can we have a strawman icon...

        for the utterly pointless and boring bollocks that DrXym has posted please...

      2. Mike Flugennock
        Megaphone

        Rich interactive content?

        By "rich interactive content" do you mean those goddamn' flickering, bouncing, migraine-inducing ads that won't hold still? The slide shows that take forever to load, and don't really _need_ Flash? The pointlessly over-designed Web sites that you can't bookmark, can't search, can't index? The goddamn' Smack The Monkey game?

        Forgive me if I'm overly cynical here, but I've been designing for the Web since around '94 -- after fifteen years in print design -- and I've learned that the phrase "rich interactive content" is marketing-speak for "useless glitzy shit".

        1. DrXym

          Bzzt wrong

          There are plenty of excellent Flash apps as you should know if you've been developing for that long. Animations, games, video players, interactive tools, front ends etc. Many of these would be difficult or outright impossible to do in HTML.

          It's quite obvious Apple could implement Flash in a manner which wouldn't overwhelm the device (e.g. by not launching flash apps in a browser unless the user touched them), but they choose not to. All their excuses for not supporting Flash (or any other runtime for that matter) are just that - excuses.

          1. CS3000

            Apple to implement Flash?

            Hold on... I thought it was Adobe that implemented Flash.... And thats the major problem with it...

            Adobe would be implementing a virtual machine on the phone and contrary to what you believe most people don't see that as an advantage. They want speed, reliability, battery life and security on their phone not crap adverts that take forever to download when they are on the road.

            Hell, if Flash was such a huge deal breaker then no one would buy an iPhone in the first place and customer satisfaction would be abysmal (which it clearly is not).

            I am willing to wager that the vast majority of current iPhone owners will one day replace their aging phones with yet another iPhone.

            1. DrXym

              CS3000

              Adobe implement Flash but Apple implement the browser that launches Flash (and other plugins). Apple could allow plugins within a page but not launch them until the user explicitly clicks on them. This would alleviate the more general concern of CPU consumption but still allow someone to run a Flash app when they need to. They could even allow the page to specify a placeholder image which is displayed in the object's space so it isn't filled with some generic plugin graphic.

              Deal breaker or not for some people, the fact is that the iPhone and more obviously the iPad enjoys a crippled web experience thanks to no Flash support. Not just Flash but also no Java, Silverlight, Real or any plugin a user might have a legitimate reason for wanting to install.

              The excuses that some are trotting out for why Apple don't do this, or why no one should care simply hold no water. Lots of sites require Flash for core functionality (e.g. most video sites) and iPhone owners are screwed.

          2. Mike Flugennock

            Wrong? well, wrong-ISH...

            Your first point's quite true, but still, as a fistful of commenters here have pointed out, the vast majority of Flash content on the Web these days is the aforementioned ads and PITA Flash Web sites.

            For every smartly-designed, elegant Flash game, presentation or interactive piece, there's probably a thousand bouncing, wiggling, stroboscopic skyscraper ads and needlessly bloated Flash-based foto slide shows.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Yeah...

      "Jobs is blocking flash for iPhones and iPads because it'd open security holes on those devices."

      Its not because it would kill the app store, not one bit, no, that's nothing to do with it. Flash is just a platform for delivering annoying adverts and everyone knows that isn't going to be possible in HTML5.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        Go one enlighten us...

        Free apps? Of course there aren't any free apps in the App store, are there? What about all those free web apps? Y'know, like was originally (and still) available for the platform? Or the fact that the app store "operates just over break-even"? Of course those FACT doesn't help your harebrained "reasoning", do they? Nice try, now fuck off back under your bridge.

      2. Mike Flugennock

        amen to that, pal...

        It took me forever to learn Flash, and I'd been attempting repeatedly ever since it was a thing called VideoWorks running on my old 512K Mac -- with pretty much the same clunky interface that Flash has now.

        I can still remember around '95 or '96ish, when Flash first emerged on the Web -- it was called "Shockwave", I think -- and at the first demo for our design staff, one of the marketing drones at the meeting wouldn't shut the hell up about the potential for "rich interactive content", which totally set my bullshit alarm to clanging. This was also about the same time that banner ads first began polluting the Web in a serious way, and as I watched the Shockwave/Flash demo run, my first thought was "oh, sweet fucking Jayzus, here come the banner ads from Hell."

        Sadly, I was right.

        I hope Flash dies in a fire.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Diversity = different platforms

      I'm bemused by your claim that running Windows ensures diversity. If someone exploits a hole in Windows (or software running on Windows), it will be a problem common to everyone using that OS or software irrespective of the peripherals attached, or the software they run, or the specific configuration of their machine (RAM, HD capacity, etc).

      Diversity means multiple, independent operating systems (and software) in active use. If 85% of the market is running the same platform, it will naturally be the target for parasitic behaviour because there is a much higher chance the infection will spread. The huge number of viruses in the wild (and under development) targeting Windows is a symptom of an unhealthy marketplace. But diversity is only possible if (non-proprietary) standards are adhered to, particularly where the Internet is concerned, and this is chiefly where Flash becomes problematic. Here we have a single implementation of a proprietary standard across all platforms - a very tempting target for criminal activity.

    6. Mike Flugennock
      Grenade

      Here's another theory...

      Windows is, from all accounts, set to "hack me, bot me, trojan me, zombify me, pwn me" straight out of the box.

      MacOS isn't.

      You're welcome.

  9. tempemeaty
    Grenade

    FYI, the lesser of two hogs....

    Just because you find another hog that's bigger doesn't mean Flash isn't also a hog.

  10. Nerg

    A more balanced view

    is available here

    http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2010/03/01/relative-performance-of-rich-media-content-across-browsers-and-operating-systems/

    A much more informed and balanced review

    1. John Daniel

      Balanced?

      Balanced view = he works for Adobe...

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. docmurdock

    Flash...KILL IT

    time to send flash packing. Am behind Steve on this one. Seeing my CPU meter peg and my browsers constantly crash even when running the latest versions of both flash and the browser makes no sense. I am tired of this thing killing off my work. HTML 5 is a cleaner spec and not having flash around will sew up some serious code execution holes that have been open for way too long.

    the iPhone, iPad & Mac don't need flash to be successful. They need a solid OS and when leaving flash out of the picture, they have one.

    Mike

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Quite Right

      "The iPhone, iPad & Mac don't need flash to be successful. They need a solid OS and when leaving flash out of the picture, they have one."

      You are right indeed. However having a cross platform application environment will pretty much weaken the app market and hasn't this been the main reason why you cannot have dangerous stuff like Java and other runtimes on their mobile platform?

      Let's face it. It is not really about streaming videos but having an interactive content delivery system that competes with their locked in environment. As ususall, Steve Job's is diverting attention on an irrelevant direction.

      Think of education. If they can pitch iPad to educational instutitions and flash is used for delivery, there would be nothing to lock these institutes down. They could move to a better platform anytime witthout any loss. However, by eliminating such environments (threats), Apple is aiming to have custom applications for the platform which will lock the potential customers within. Of course, this strategy is one of the reasons, iPad announcement was not received well by even the Apple subjects.

      So having flash would not make Aplle more successfull but pretty much threaten the future of their lock in strategy instead.

      1. Rolf Howarth
        Badgers

        Lock in?

        The jury's still out on exactly why Apple are so against Flash, though I suspect things like 99.5% of Safari crashes being caused by Flash probably didn't help.

        It could be about lock in to the App Store, but in that case why are Apple so keen to see HTML5 develop into a capable standard with things like the canvas class etc.?

        More likely is that Apple don't like Flash is because they don't control the source code. HTML isn't a threat because it's open and they can develop their own mobile browser that's as good at or better than the competition, but with Flash they're at Adobe's mercy. Apple don't want to be condemned to having a second best implementation of mobile Flash and not being able to do anything about it. Much better not to support it at all.

      2. chr0m4t1c
        WTF?

        No, you lost me

        "Let's face it. It is not really about streaming videos but having an interactive content delivery system that competes with their locked in environment. As ususall, Steve Job's is diverting attention on an irrelevant direction."

        Bit of a left turn at the lights, there. I can't see path of your logic. Explain to me how not having flash, but replacing it with more open equivalents (HTML5, JavaScript, etc) makes people locked in?

        As far as I can see the only content that you are locked into is the apps. Music, movies and books can all be bought from someone else and loaded on these devices. Usually the problem lies in conversion, which in turn relies on whether or not the provider makes that possible, but that's hardly Apple's fault - you would be in the same boat with a device from Archos for example.

        "Think of education. If they can pitch iPad to educational institutions and flash is used for delivery, there would be nothing to lock these institutes down. They could move to a better platform anytime without any loss."

        Why the fcuk would an educational establishment base it's content around Flash? All they would be doing is getting locked into someone else. What happens when Adobe decide to not make a runtime for the "better platform"? Ask anyone running 64-bit Windows if you want to know how quickly Adobe support new platforms.

        There are a great many ways of creating cross-platform rich content, flash is only one of them but if you want to avoid lock-in and make your stuff future proof then you probably want to give it a wide berth.

        Yes, Apple want people to go to iTunes to buy all of their content, but it's not the only option. My iPod has plenty of albums on it that I purchased from Amazon, books I got from project Gutenberg and videos I converted from my own DVDs. In fact the only content on it that came from iTunes is stuff I won in a Coke promotion.

        Hardly locked in!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No, you lost me

          I thought it was obvious that there would be newer and more magical models of iPad before HTML5 takes over. Therefore I did not really consider HTML5 as a mature competitor to Flash or other RIA environments as you do. You might have a valid point, I am sure the original iPad will be obsolete before HTML5 takes over.

          I've been using flash on 64 bit systems but mainly Vista and Windows 7. So if the complaints apply to older versions, I cannot really comment.

          I believe you know more About Apple's strategy here, but is there any news about Java and other runtimes being allowed on iPad? This is what I remember from SDK agreement:

          "No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Published APIs and builtin interpreter(s)… An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise.”

          I know this restriction is for the greater good, but right now, we are only discussing Flash because Adobe has spoken publicly about the situation. But I don't really think the question is about if it will be possible to run flash on iPad.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        Nah

        Not really, HTML5 does basically everything Flash does, it's not going to be that long before it becomes pretty widespread either - long before it ever becomes a reccomended standard.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          @Nah

          HTML5 does about 1% of what Flash does - and largely theoretically at the moment. Adobe are probably very worried about video streaming dominance going west, but don't kid yourself about RIA - in this latter respect HTML5 is not the standard you're hoping for.

          HTML5 is ideal for Jobs though, enough for a few bells and whistles without being able to provide all those cute little games, widgets and toys from which may Apple so much money without doing anything very much - and for which Flash equivalents already exist in massive over-abundance, waiting to be ported and largely distributed though cost-free, ad supported models which won't earn Apple anything.

          Get real.

          1. CS3000

            Get real

            You obviously have no idea about Apple making money on the App store and this tired old theory that flash is not implemented because Apple would lose out on vast amounts of cash.

            1. The apps that flash would replace are nearly all free on the app store.

            2. Free apps on the app store cost Apple as much money to review and host as paid apps.

            3. Apple loses money for hosting free apps on the app store.

            4. There are a zillion free apps on the app store (go figure the economics)

            5. Web apps have always been available on the iPhone... just not java or Flash based.

            6. Overall the app store makes a profit, but not the vast riches you guys seem to think

            7. If the app store was so profitable then Microsoft, Google, Nokia, Blackberry etc would have had a proper competitor to it by now.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Alien

      Gates - Kill him

      Evil Skeletor!!!

  12. Phillip Webster
    Megaphone

    Maybe for pure video

    But flash is inefficient at everything. Flash games often eat an entire core for simplistic 2D worlds that if running on even the inefficient Java or .NET VMs would barely touch the CPU.

    For a long, long time expecting flash to run above 10fps at high resolutions would result in disappointment.

    Even now, only the Windows version of flash has any consistency of sensible framerate with the Linux version especially dying, losing sound or dropping to under 5fps. It's so bad that browser restarts every few hours are required to keep using flash on Linux.

    The technology is flawed. I'm no fan of Apple, in fact I'd be as happy to see them go as flash, but they are correct in saying flash is a CPU hog.

    1. Anonymous Bastard
      Thumb Down

      Not what I would call a solution

      On linux try turning off Compiz or any window manager that uses hardware acceleration. Flash's acceleration is incompatible with those. Without it can run much faster but is still as buggy if not more so than the Windows equivalent.

      I haven't tried alternatives like Gnash or swfdec because they lack support for newer version files.

      (Thumbs down for closed-source, proprietary vendor lock-ins)

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.