What I don't understand is all the people praising HTML5 because it uses less CPU than Flash yet Chrome ends up using 15-20% CPU just to render a simple animation unlike Flash.
I believe this example is a SWF running in Canvas (as opposed to vanilla HTML5).
Regardless, with HTML5 you have all the benefits of an OSS rendering engine where performance can be improved by individual implementors (eg, Apple improving WebKit on A4/ARM) or groups of developers with similar interests (eg, Google/Apple/other contributors to WebKit for x86). Where as with Adobe's Flash plugin, you're pretty much reduced to hoping or praying that Adobe will fix problems relevant to your interests.
In other words, the performance may suck now in some demos, but the situation is better than relying on Adobe... for some companies anyway.
Some people probably just assume that switching to HTML5 content always uses fewer CPU resources. There are plenty of informed reasons to prefer HTML content over Flash though. One is that putting performance into the hands of multiple companies will introduce competition. Just like with Javascript speeds, you can expect browser-makers to start racing in other areas of HTML5 performance.
I wouldn't be surprised to see HTML5 outperform equivalent Flash content in a year or so.
I'm sorry I haven't noticed. But I do have noticed http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1387630 because it points to the page I was posting, the homepage. Too bad it hasn't became very popular
If this means that animated advertisements and other ad agency annoyances will be coming soon to my iPad web browsing experience, put me down as a detractor.
The sad thing: the ads were coming anyway. If you build a popular platform like the iPad, the advertisers will find a way to get ads on it, whether it's with Flash or not.
But by banning Flash, Apple is pushing advertisers to HTML/Javascript, which ruins the experience for those marginal, blissful few who use Flash blockers on other platforms. Really, you couldn't have asked for a better indicator, short of a mandatory <lowvaluecontent> tag. :)
Why would you want to do that for? You would still have the annoying ads (or whatever) plus the overhead of a chrome extension to convert them when the page loads!
yes, it's all still being improved and the engines will be a lot faster in a few years, but how about first creating a true alternative, then start bashing flash.
I don't mind getting rid of flash, but please, lets try to move forward with technology at the same time. Not two steps back, just to remove a competitor so we end up at the same point three years later...
None of the demos they show that I saw playback FLVs, where are you looking at those?
Also worth noting that in one of their demos they say that it only supports up to a "sizable subset of Flash 8" for playback currently. From: http://smokescreen.us/demos/intro.html
I think it is just further proof that necessity is the mother of invention.
Flash was invented out of a need for artists to be able to create animations on the web. Now there is a back catalog of Flash content which is losing a home. A swf player of some kind is needed to preserve that content. Someone had to build this.
Perhaps, but this is very much a "broken-window theory" type of innovation. If this undoubtedly smart developer hadn't needed to work on this to get around Apple's policy, who knows what more progressive achievement he could have accomplished?
In Chrome on Mac, the techno Strongbad Email played perfectly fine, and my computer didn't burn me. I'd say it's a success, though still lots of room to grow I imagine.
because their SWF format has been open for years and someone wrote another HTML 5 renderer that works with a subset of Flash content and performs terrible?
Very interesting! Running the Smokescreen JavaScript flash player did not cause my battery life to go down like normal flash does. I always watch that when I am running a flash YouTube video or flash game.
It will be interesting to see how the performance works with more complex games.
[+] [-] recampbell|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mahmud|16 years ago|reply
http://www.cliki.net/Gordon
[+] [-] kierank|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tvon|16 years ago|reply
Regardless, with HTML5 you have all the benefits of an OSS rendering engine where performance can be improved by individual implementors (eg, Apple improving WebKit on A4/ARM) or groups of developers with similar interests (eg, Google/Apple/other contributors to WebKit for x86). Where as with Adobe's Flash plugin, you're pretty much reduced to hoping or praying that Adobe will fix problems relevant to your interests.
In other words, the performance may suck now in some demos, but the situation is better than relying on Adobe... for some companies anyway.
[+] [-] zweben|16 years ago|reply
I wouldn't be surprised to see HTML5 outperform equivalent Flash content in a year or so.
[+] [-] ugh|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaosmachine|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] earcar|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcl|16 years ago|reply
But by banning Flash, Apple is pushing advertisers to HTML/Javascript, which ruins the experience for those marginal, blissful few who use Flash blockers on other platforms. Really, you couldn't have asked for a better indicator, short of a mandatory <lowvaluecontent> tag. :)
[+] [-] EricButler|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] al_james|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noibl|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pizzaman|16 years ago|reply
yes, it's all still being improved and the engines will be a lot faster in a few years, but how about first creating a true alternative, then start bashing flash.
I don't mind getting rid of flash, but please, lets try to move forward with technology at the same time. Not two steps back, just to remove a competitor so we end up at the same point three years later...
[+] [-] pizzaman|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agotterer|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sosuke|16 years ago|reply
Also worth noting that in one of their demos they say that it only supports up to a "sizable subset of Flash 8" for playback currently. From: http://smokescreen.us/demos/intro.html
[+] [-] mtholking|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sheldonwt|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sthorpe|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snprbob86|16 years ago|reply
Flash was invented out of a need for artists to be able to create animations on the web. Now there is a back catalog of Flash content which is losing a home. A swf player of some kind is needed to preserve that content. Someone had to build this.
[+] [-] Psyonic|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|16 years ago|reply
It would be great.
[+] [-] watty|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antipaganda|16 years ago|reply
Some of us would like to play Flash games on the iOS.
That, and the porn.
That is all.
[+] [-] apgwoz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amanuel|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] watty|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NathanKP|16 years ago|reply
It will be interesting to see how the performance works with more complex games.
[+] [-] not_an_alien|16 years ago|reply
Tell me you're not comparing the decompression and rendering of a video against a simple animation.
[+] [-] mitjak|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bnoland|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NathanKP|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pstinnett|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comex|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] perpetuity|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] d0m|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d0m|16 years ago|reply