So what IS the official line on Flash Aversion? Resource Eating? Taking away from QuickTime?

[M A V I C]

Winston wrote:
I tried a random YouTube video on my 667 MHz TiBook:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPjvLk-eEUU&feature=rec-fresh+div-r-3-HM

Playback on YouTube is jerky. Playback with QuickTime Player or Miro is perfect. This is not the best video as a lot of it is static and there are no faces to check voice sync, but it still proves the point

So I'm more curious now after doing some testing. That Flash video is FLV1. If you open it up in QT you get the message:

The document “video.flv” could not be opened. The movie is not in a format that QuickTime Player understands.

So unless there's something I'm missing, you weren't comparing the same videos.

What res do you have the YouTube video set to when it's playing back in the browser?

[Article Accelerator]

Mavic: Install ClickToFlash then go to just about any YouTube video. Click on the ClickToFlash "gear" to pop-up a menu that allows you to download the video's H.264 version.

[deckeda]

Perian should allow Quicktime Player to play .flv files. It performs a background translation of some kind (on long videos I've seen a progress bar appear that's not part of Quicktime Player, not part of the Finder) before playback begins rendering from Quicktime Player.

blasting Flash as a whole based on video playback make no sense to me. The vast majority of Flash isn't video.

It may be that Flash just isn't the best way to go for video, and that for other uses it's not a performance detriment.

The majority of Flash may not be video, but the majority of online video is without question certainly Flash. I'll PM you later today with what I discovered from what you uploaded.

[trisho.]

I agree with M A V I C that there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread as to what actually uses Flash on the web.

deckeda wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
... CSS & HTML 5 only partially replace what Flash offers.

What additional tools would make it worthwhile to develop an alternative solution in order to have the advantages of a Flash-less online experience?
Flash just isn't video. Do you think you'd be able to experience the animation on the Simpsons web site without Flash? Yes, that animation is done in Flash if not their proprietary system not HTML 5. When you go to movie or musicians' sites, all that animation is Flash and cannot be replicated by HTML 5. It cannot, period. In those cases of rich media, Flash will not be replaced at all.

For navigational menu animations such as accordion menus, etc, they can be replaced by jQuery & HTML 5. I think M A V I C and i are speaking from the perspective of people who actually produce content for the web & build it versus people who consume the web.

Article Accelerator wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
Wow. Ok. There appears to be some misunderstandings in this thread...There isn't a Flash video codec. All Flash provides is a wrapper for third party video codecs. The problem is, the most commonly used codecs are processor intensive.

No, that isn't the problem. The problem is Flash itself. If I download a YouTube video (in H.264 format) and play it with QuickTime player, it plays perfectly. Yet, it won't play at all in Flash on the web page.

Flash is garbage.

BTW, this test is on a G4/400!

CSS & HTML 5 only partially replace what Flash offers.

What's missing?

AA, see above. Also, you downloading a movie and playing in QuickTime on your hard drive or desktop is *way* different than playing a video in a browser that's dependent on servers, buffering, your browser cache & your internet connection. Of course it's going to run faster on your hard drive. Try running the Flash file on your hard drive, I'm sure it will be miles faster as well.

[silvarios]

trisho. wrote:
Flash just isn't video. Do you think you'd be able to experience the animation on the Simpsons web site without Flash? Yes, that animation is done in Flash if not their proprietary system not HTML 5. When you go to movie or musicians' sites, all that animation is Flash and cannot be replicated by HTML 5. It cannot, period. In those cases of rich media, Flash will not be replaced at all.

For navigational menu animations such as accordion menus, etc, they can be replaced by jQuery & HTML 5. I think M A V I C and i are speaking from the perspective of people who actually produce content for the web & build it versus people who consume the web.

Flash navigation is an even bigger issue. Buggy, slow, doesn't work well on mobile devices, and often has very poor accessibility. I've never met a consumer who actually like navigatng heavily Flash based websites.


Nathan

[trisho.]

Nathan, yes Flash navigation is a bigger issue & that's why a lot of sites don't have it even though they have Flash in their main content areas. And yes, Flash does not run well on mobile phones but then again, the iPhone and other phones choke on Ajax functionality as well. I think it's a general issue for advanced web on the phone. Returning to my original example, do you really expect to experience the Simpsons Flash web site (which runs extremely well) on a phone? Or should you be more realistic and accept that phones don't have nearly as much processing power as laptops/desktops and deal with a lower tech version that's still pretty darn good?

It sounds like you and other folks are beating a dead horse. I'm not a huge proponent of Flash either, but I still understand its usefulness and am willing to admit it. And same thing for M A V I C as well, I'm assuming. I'm not going around saying "OMGZ FLASH IS TEH DEVULZ!!" just because I don't care for it. It has its purpose and so be it. I get along just fine as a web designer & light coder without needing Flash but completely appreciate the Flex & AIR applications.


To add, this argument sounds like the reverse-Luddite of people who HATE HTML emails with all their passions & the fire of a thousand suns. It's as if they can't wrap it around their minds that just because they don't like something or find it useful, that other folks won't find it useful.

[Article Accelerator]

trisho. wrote:
I agree with M A V I C that there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread as to what actually uses Flash on the web.

Since installing ClickToFlash, I am fully aware of where Flash is used and what it's used for.

Flash just isn't video...all that animation is Flash and cannot be replicated by HTML 5. It cannot, period.

Perhaps not yet, but it will be. In the meantime, I can live without it.

I think M A V I C and i are speaking from the perspective of people who actually produce content for the web & build it versus people who consume the web.

I think people in your position should point out to your clients that by using Flash, they are excluding a significant portion of web users from viewing their ads and/or sites, viz. virtually all mobile users (>100 million) plus the millions of additional users who have enabled Flash blockers on their other devices.

If the objective is to impress as many eyeballs as possible, your clients are making a big mistake by insisting on Flash.

AA, see above. Also, you downloading a movie and playing in QuickTime on your hard drive or desktop is *way* different than playing a video in a browser that's dependent on servers, buffering, your browser cache & your internet connection. Of course it's going to run faster on your hard drive. Try running the Flash file on your hard drive, I'm sure it will be miles faster as well.

First, for testing purposes I always let embedded Flash video fully download before attempting to play. Second, I've actually done the test you propose, i.e. playing the FLV from a standalone local file. It's only slightly better but still unviewable.

[trisho.]

Article Accelerator wrote:

I think M A V I C and i are speaking from the perspective of people who actually produce content for the web & build it versus people who consume the web.

I think people in your position should point out to your clients that by using Flash, they are excluding a significant portion of web users from viewing their ads and/or sites, viz. virtually all mobile users (>100 million) plus the millions of additional users who have enabled Flash blockers on their other devices.

If the objective is to impress as many eyeballs as possible, your clients are making a big mistake by insisting on Flash.

I don't insist on Flash, because I don't feel like dealing with it. Also...you kind of showed above that you're not aware of how ad serving systems work. Whenever companies submit their ads to an ad serving network, they're required to give JPG, GIF or PNG along with a Flash file, just in case people's browsers are blocking Flash. That way, their ads still get through. Consumers who have all ads blocked are the only ones not seeing the ads and that just doesn't single out Flash.

I've designed ads for web and mobile and have gone through this experience many times. There are always alternative ads being served.

[silvarios]

To recap, the only part of my web experience that brings my systems to their knees is Flash video and Flash navigation. The former soaks up my CPU and blasts the fans. The latter is simply a poor design choice that makes navigation more complicated.

I am streaming the iPad keynote in my iBook G4 as h.264 and there is no slowdown. I'd love to see how the same video encapsulated in Flash would fair. Better example. YouTube on the netbook running Ubuntu 9.10 is very hit and miss (although the experience is better since Flash 10). The same videos in Totem as h.264 play back with nary a hitch. Both are streaming.

[M A V I C]

Article Accelerator wrote:
Mavic: Install ClickToFlash then go to just about any YouTube video. Click on the ClickToFlash "gear" to pop-up a menu that allows you to download the video's H.264 version.

Thank you for pointing that out. The Flash video is not H.264 so you are not getting the same video that the Flash player would play. That means it's not an accurate comparison.

In my tests thus far, playing the same video via HTML5 and via Flash yield just about the same load.

Article Accelerator wrote:
I think people in your position should point out to your clients that by using Flash, they are excluding a significant portion of web users from viewing their ads and/or sites, viz. virtually all mobile users (>100 million) plus the millions of additional users who have enabled Flash blockers on their other devices.

Sorry, but those numbers aren't accurate. Flash and Flash Lite have way more market penetration than you're estimating. For example http://www.adobe.com/products/flashlite/

My Palm phone plays Flash videos just fine.

Not only that, but the CTR of Flash ads is so much higher that it's way more cost effective, especially for CPM campaigns.

silvarios wrote:
To recap, the only part of my web experience that brings my systems to their knees is Flash video and Flash navigation.

Somehow I seriously doubt that most Flash navs bring your systems to their knees.

The latter is simply a poor design choice that makes navigation more complicated.

That's all in how it's designed - not something that's an inherent issue with Flash.

I am streaming the iPad keynote in my iBook G4 as h.264 and there is no slowdown. I'd love to see how the same video encapsulated in Flash would fair. Better example. YouTube on the netbook running Ubuntu 9.10 is very hit and miss (although the experience is better since Flash 10). The same videos in Totem as h.264 play back with nary a hitch. Both are streaming.

I think you're not making accurate comparisons. You're saying "the same videos" yet you're saying they're encoded differently.

Which size of the keynote were you watching?