Opera wades into Flash debate, says it 'makes very little sense' for video
By Donald Melanson 
posted May 6th 2010 12:52PM
posted May 6th 2010 12:52PM
Opera Software already caused quite a stir with the release of the iPhone version of its browser, and it looks like it's now starting to make itself heard in one of the biggest browser-related debates going. Speaking with Tech Radar, Opera's product analyst Phillip Grønvold started out with something of a diplomatic approach by saying that "today's internet content is dependent on Flash" and "if you remove Flash you do not have today's internet," and for that reason Opera needs to support Flash. Things get a bit more interesting from there, however, with Grønvold stating that while Flash has its place for things like dynamic content, it "makes very little sense" as a video container given the impact on processor and battery usage, adding that "you can cook an egg on [devices] once you start running Flash on them and there's a reason for that." Fried eggs, potatoes -- these browsers sure are making us hungry.
Then Opera employee never use youtube.
@techlord ... and you clearly never used it either, as it runs well in both the native apps and the current HTML5 beta. All that's missing from the latter (last I checked) are ads and other overlays.
@Dale P
Which I hate both of so that's a plus for HTML5 in my book!
@Dale P
The HTML5 beta of youtube sucks.
There's no captions or any of the other action script based content within videos, and a lot of content simply isn't available on mobile devices.
@techlord cook a steak on your phone, there's an app for that!
@reallynotnick I'm really getting tired of the notion that because they don't currently make annoying ads in HTML5 that they won't.. as if removing flash also removes the market for annoying advertisers..
If anything what we're doing is getting rid of the ability to block them.
@Dale P
I doubt you've used youtube's HTML 5 beta if you say it runs well.
@dardub
Opera is returning favor to Apple!
@paulfalgout
Exactly why I'm wary of HTML5, at least with flash you can block intrusive ads etc. With HTML5 I've heard they will be sort of 'baked-in' to the video or website, so you can't hide or avoid it :(
@techlord Firefox doesn't work with the HTML5 Beta for obvious reasons. Chrome doesn't work with the fullscreen option of HTML5 but I guess Apple users think that's a feature considering Quicktime and how you "maximize" windows in OS X.
And in all in sounds like a perfect idea to ditch Flash RIGHT NOW as people suggest.
@Dale P Why would you cook an egg on your cellphone? This is madness.
@dardub YouTube's HTML5 Beta must be deliberately designed to make it look useless.
@dardub The video playback was smooth, that's what I meant by well. Obviously I'm coming from the wrong angle, caring about the content and not the paraphernalia around it. :D
@techlord
I think it is interesting the opinion of the free Software Foundation about this:
FSF responds to Jobs's "Thoughts on Flash"
"Watching two proprietary software companies deeply opposed to computer user freedom lob accusations back and forth about who is more opposed to freedom has been surreal, to say the least..."
http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-responds-to-jobss-thoughts-on-flash
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/pot-meet-kettle-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars
@Ridgecity It's more portable than a griddle, gotta get my protein somehow!
@paulfalgout
Finally someone who had a clue.
If you ever hear a person say they hate Flash because they hate ads then you know you're listening to a person who might not understand what planet they live on.
Fact: Ads are ads. Not Flash. It's actually flattering to Flash that Ads choose them sometimes in their missions. You see, Ads are like bugs. They're always going to be around. They're necessary. If you understand that money drives a lot of societies(pretty much all) then you'll understand the need for "Ads". Ads pay bills. Ads give jobs. Ads are the starter logs of a bonfire. Literally and figuratively. So even without "Flash" Ads will use the program that will allow them to get in your face and annoy you the most. Objective-C? OMG?!!!
Hey I'm all for a different codec or plugin for video. I think video could be run more efficiently. But seriously what the hell do I know about video codec proc usage.. Adobe needs to retweak the flash video "solution" to something the critics and everyone else wants. Will Steve still have a problem then?
But as far as interactive vector animation goes nobody can hold a candle the the Flash development environment and community. Flash devs love using Flash. And the products on the web are proof. Lets just retweak the plugin to not heat up pc's so much and we call be happy campers. No?
What happened to LAY? I haven't seen him since the Courier got canceled.
@Ridgecity Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!!
@Dale P
"All that's missing from the latter (last I checked) are ads and other overlays."
If only that were true...
@htd
Phonecooker™
"Cook a steak on your phone, there's an app for that!"
Note: Will subject your CPU to an unsolvable algorithm, thus overheating it to needed temperature. Warning: Phone may explode.
@who said what "Opera is returning favor to Apple!"
Well, I think they just don't want to spend time and money to implement that. So, they need to came up with an excuse.
@Dale P :: When I try YouTube in chrome in HTML5 mode the videos occasionally don't appear on the page. It would be nice to have the web not exclusively using one company's products, but even for video at the moment it is not feasible until the problems get fixed.
@Dale P I like to use opera and its brag (fastest browser on earth) sometimes, but they should have just zipped their mouth and not meddle onto these flash debate. http://j.mp/opera-desktops-fastest-browser
@who said what Bullshit. Apple says flash sucks and you dont need it anyway. Opera says, the web without flash is not the same (negative) but it blows for playing back videos and that is not a favor, its a fact.
@Dig Deep "But as far as interactive vector animation goes nobody can hold a candle the the Flash development environment and community"
silverlight?
@Dig Deep
This is one of the best comments I've ever seen on Engadget. Cheers.
@techlord
Screw BOTH of them. DIVX is superior in every way for video! High quality, low cpu usage.
adobe blew it
@Formul
...i hope adobe didnt think blowing would actually solve all the cpu heat issues
@skyblaze
I applaud you, quite the clever remark
@skyblaze Clever mate clever.
@skyblaze good one:-)
@Formul
If you see these 2 videos, I think it is interesting that the HANDS of the man holding the Nexus One ARENT BURNING IN FLAMES.
Maybe I am Blind?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaHnzx9jaiY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEgBV2QB4Q0
@Beatnik It's clear Flash is maxing out the power of the phone though given that it is stuttering all over the place and slowing down the browser. Mobile devices are designed not to overheat, they just run slower.
I can't believe people are using those videos to justify why Flash should be supported on mobiles. I'm using the same videos to justify why it shouldn't.
That is a horrible experience for media playback. Dropped frames, hang-ups, stuttering graphics and even crashes if you check the tablet videos. I don't want that experience on my phone.
It's not as simple as asking to have the option to use it. If the option is there for users to consume the content, it creates an audience for publishers. This means people continue using Flash and everybody gets a bad experience.
Flash is dead. Long live HTML 5 and Adobe's HTML 5 content creation apps. Nobody is hating on Adobe, they have filled a gap for such a long time and they have defined the way internet content is delivered with excellent creative software. They just need to fully support a standard that gives the device manufacturers control over how well published content is decoded and push Flash into the archives.
@TinWard
"I can't believe people are using those videos to justify why Flash should be supported on mobiles. I'm using the same videos to justify why it shouldn't."
So true. I've watched both videos and I know I would probably ditch my phone if my web browsing experience was like this. The choppyness of the scrolling and resizing the Flash area is nuts and the full-screen video playback isn't even at full framerate. And this is on about the highest-end phone hardware money can buy :-S. And the stupidest part of it all is that people will blame the phone for it, while it's purely the software that runs like shit, it's not like the N1 can't play smooth full-screen video or anything.
@TinWard
+10,000
(Well, people ARE bashing Adobe right now, but only for being dumbasses about Flash and refusing to do what they do best.)
@Bskballa92 +1 Line of the day for sure.
@TinWard Your right. If only Flash on mobile ran as well as HTML5 canvas on the iPad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4
Love to have portable kitchen on the go with my cell phone, but that's just pure bullsh*t.
I have to agree with mr. opera on this matter
@onehipcat
The Opera people and I are in sync on this issue. This is how I've felt all along. It's not that us Flash Haters think Flash is completely useless in all iterations, it just sucks to use it for something as vital as video on the web.
I've always thought that even when Flash dies, and it will, there will always be a few pockets of the internet that use it for stuff like games. I'm completely okay with that. Just keep it away from my video.
@Peter Church I completely disagree with you on this one! Flash is what made video popular and accessible to everyone online. Video files are contained in the flash container so your computer doesn't need to have special codecs to play the file. Go ahead, try playing video from Youtube HTLM5 page. You can't because Firefox doesn't include .h264 codec due to legal issues.
@Bratan
Doesn't need special CODECS? WTF do you think flash is?
@Bratan
Yes, let's keep Flash around for video because it brought us video on the web, great idea. I think we should re-surrect Netscape Navigator 1.0 too and all put marquee tags and 'under construction' images on our sites too.
@credo Well, I'll tell you what Flash isn't, and it ain't a CODEC.
@onehipcat
Yup. Something will replace the current version of Flash - and this may actually be a better version of Flash - but it's what the web uses just now.
Flash (FLV, F4V), MP4, MOV, WMV, etc. are not codecs, they are containers. In fact Flash (F4V) uses H264 codec. But the problem is that many flash videos on the web are the older FLV that use Sorenson or On2 codecs. Anyways, it's really about money and control from both ends. Adobe makes money from expensive streaming server licenses and Flash software sales. This is not even about web video, but install base. Web video has been a great way to get people to install their plugin (something that Microsoft is also doing with Silverlight). But at the end of the day, this is not about today, but tomorrow. HTML5 is still infant, but web video is such a big part of the internet today, that having to install a plugin to watch it is ridiculous. Imaging having to install Flash plugin just to view images on the internet. Years from now that's how silly flash video will be in people's mind.
@Peter Church How are you meant to deliver all the amazing features of flash video with HTML5 ? Seriously - there is no way - 3D animated interactive videos with bitmap filters and physics in html5 - get off the grass mate. The complexity of flash video streaming and what is capable is significantly greater than the intellectual capacity of almost every anti flash luddite.
@Aristophrenia
That's true and it's tough. The only way is a blend between HTML and embedded video, which is more complexity than it's worth. But if we don't walk down this road now, better solutions may not be discovered, and we'll be stuck with this proprietary flapjack for the next decade or two. The biggest hurdle isn't technology, it's web authoring tools.
I don't think flash is the real problem...
I think the lousy CPUs are the problem...