4 thoughts

  1. So Mike’s point seems to be that using the Flash plug-in to display video isn’t necessarily more CPU intensive than err… using a native browser rendering engine (like one that supportsHTML5 etc) that doesn’t require a third party plug-in?
    Still not a very convincing sell of Flash, is it? Sticking within the context of Mike’s article, what is the actual *benefit* of Flash?
    This is not a "win" for Flash in the Adobe Flash vs Apple iPhone/iPad argument.
    Disclosure: I am no fan of Flash, but I am even less a fan of Apple’s "i" products.

    Adam

  2. @Adam: The whole point of Mike’s article is not to sell Flash as better than HTML5. It’s to counter a very specific attack leveled at Flash, that it is a CPU hog. I’m not sure why everybody seems to see everything in black and white terms of A vs B, eithe

  3. Right… That explains why Flash on my notebook runs the processor 10% higher simply by running a few Flash ads on a couple of web pages.
    Which translates to losing a full hour of battery life. Turn on ClickToFlash, and I get an instant battery boost.
    Coincidence? I think not.

  4. Well, sure. But the *reason* why this conversation has come up is that Apple won’t let Flash onto iPhones/iPads. And if Flash only does round about as good a job as HTML5-equipped browsers can do it natively, it’s not a compelling counterpoint to Apple’s position, is it?

    Adam
    PS (to Ben): I checked "subscribe" when I posted last night, but got no email notification of David’s post..?

Leave a Reply