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.
@rik66 What more precisely do you have in mind? I see Adobe turning their back in the late 90s and crappy Flash.
@Atkins That's the official line you got fed from Apple and you bought it.Truth is a bit more complicated than that. Throughout the development process Apple dragged their feet in supplying Adobe with the necessary information to be able to succesfully code Flash. When you read some of the blogs from the flash developers ( you can access past blogs in their archives ) you can see just how annoying comunication with Apple was and still is .
BOTH were to blame for this situation - and still are - so to simply put all the blame on one company might be easy but isn't true.It never is, by the way .
One thing I have to admire though : developers on both sides who are on the W3C board refuse - thusfar- to discuss anything about their communication within that group ( needles to say the fact Jobs released a public letter detailing discussions therein seriously complicated matters for all within that group,including Apple and Adobe ).Because that is the golden rule of any policy-making group consisting of various companies : don't babble.
@capnbob66
Not all the time it's hit or miss
really annoying actually. Also make it easier to scroll to last comment with this app soooooo annoying
sent from iPhone
Engadget derides opera as irrelevant but because they criticise flash suddenly they are ok? Hmm
Opera : the attention seeker.
@zagor
LMFAO
What do you call adobe? They've been bitching for ages it seems. Screaming into the wild for anyone to hear about how unfair Apple is being.
Like an abused girlfriend/wife who just cannot get a CLUE.
@TheLondonExchange
Compared to Adobe's and Apple's scale, Opera is just a kid...
As a video professional I would be happy to see a unified approach to online video playback that doesn't require 100 lines of javascript and Flash Player. I'm all for it. But let's clear up some things.
The anti flashers seem to think that cpu utilization while watching video is the result of some problem or needless overhead with Flash. Let's be clear here - most online video these days is equivelent in physical dimensions and bit rate to television broadcasts, including HDTV, okay? Watching that modern, broadband-ready video will tax your cpu/gpu, regardless of which player you use, because the datarate is so high. Watching an HD stream is not unlike the datarate of many action oriented video games. So to be clear, in all cases without exception, modern video playback will require CPU or GPU cycles to play smoothly, okay? It's an indisputable fact of life.
On the mac side, the ONLY reason your fans spin up as bad as they do when watching Flash-based video is because Apple refused to allow hardware acceleration for ANY media players (not just Flash) except for Quicktime. It was simply putting promotion of their own software above the user experience. As a result, third party playback tools had to rely on software-only playback which is the equivelent of trying to play Crysis with no video card. That was Apple's law until a week or two ago. So myth 2 busted - adobe wasn't being "lazy" or refusing to optimize Flash for osx, Apple had flatly refused them and everyone else the tools needed to do so. Quicktime uses the same resources as Flash to play modern video, but it uses cpu/gpu so you don't notice the impact as much. Once Flash is built to take advantage of the new Apple rules, it should perform almost as good as Quicktime natively does.
BOTTOM LINE - Flash is no more inefficient than any other media player, people are just blaming the realities of video playback on Flash because 99% of the videos you watch are Flash video. It's guilt by association and nothing more. If Quicktime had emerged as the dominant internet video software of choice instead of Flash, you would all be calling for the head of Steve Jobs right now rather than Adobe's. In either case, the anger is misplaced and silly. As anyone older than 15 should remember, it wasn't that long ago that even the most expensive computers on the market couldn't play back video at all, much less broadcast quality video. Now you expect HD video to work flawlessly, without even using system resources at all? Grow up, or at least go read up!
@beenyweenies ...they wouldn't be pissed at the cult leader...cult leader was just giving them a lap warmer with quicktime. A magical one.
Anyway, good to see someone that remembers from where all this craptastic war by proxy comes from.
@beenyweenies
Thanks for all that, but sadly you've also bought into crybaby Adobe's FUD about Apple restricting access to their API's. Yes, Apple had a set of internal API's for H264 decoding that have only recently be made public. They do this all the time, every OS X version carries new and unreleased API's that are subject to change and not publicly available, but Apple can already use these API's themselves. If a minor OS X update breaks them, they just change whatever uses it so things keep working. Things have been like this with Quartz Extreme, Core Animation, Core Image, OpenCL, in fact about every major framework Apple has added over OS X's lifetime. Now Adobe complains that Apple 'blocked access' to the decoding API's, but that's not the case, Apple simply didn't finalize the API's.
So that's the first part of the story. Now, instead of whining about the fact that they didn't get a full video decoder on a silver platter from Apple, Adobe could have worked on a GLSL based GPU-accelerated codec since OS X 10.1. Or an OpenCL-based decoder since 10.6. For H264, they might even been able to use the QuickTime API's by re-containering the video payload in a MOV container (not sure if that would work though, contrary to GLSL and OpenCL).
It's not like Adobe is the only company writing OS X software besides Apple. There's lots of professional transcoding and video editing software for OS X that has made use of GPU-acceleration for years. Sadly, the FUD that Adobe has spread around about appear to be taken for facts seeing that I see the argument you're making everywhere on the net right now.
@drange
Even if Adobe did have alternatives, you are insisting that they should have bent over double-backward to support Apple's ridiculous methodology. Microsoft didn't withhold and release APIs this way, forcing devs to resort to ridiculous and costly workarounds. As a result Flash has worked great for their users all along. Is that considered "handing them a video player on a silver platter" and if so, is that a bad thing considering that it led to a better user experience for their customers? Maybe this is just another thing that helps explain why Windows dominates OSX 100:1 in market share and availability of software, even though Apple had a head start. I'm writing this on my Mac Pro so don't even bother accusing me of being a Windowz fanboy.
Since you seem to think Adobe's in the wrong here, can you present a business case for why ANY company would dedicate massive development resources to a FREE plugin that will ultimately be used by what, 5% of the internet market, simply because the OS vendor refuses to open APIs that would make it 100x easier? Given that reality, maybe Adobe DID just finally give up and say "fuck Apple" and can we really blame them?
@beenyweenies
Why would I accuse you of being a Windows fanboy? I get your thinking, it's just that I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions. I don't think Apple is actively trying to screw anyone by withholding API's or that Jobs gets off on Adobe having to bend over to anything. Adobe has had lots of options making Flash on OS X better, write their own codec using available API's, buy or license one, have it developed by someone else, whatever. It just didn't happen, probably because they didn't care enough. I mean it's less than 10% of the market, just like Linux, so why bother? I
Opera, once again, makes complete sense. Flash is not an ideal video container, and this where HTML5 absolutely should take over, but it is important to the web and hence it should be supported. So many people seem to think that Flash and HTML are somehow technology rivals when in reality they actually work side by side.
I really do hope Adobe opens up Flash and Apple stops being big brother so much.
@mlahero The point is Adobe has every reason to support BOTH HTML 5 and its own Flash: they are the #1 producers of design software - in this case webdesign,dreamweaver to be precise - and it would be incredibly stupid if they somehow didn't acknowledge the importance of developments in the HTML-area. But - as its CTO correctly stated- one doesn't preclude the other and Flash is excellent as a ( not THE ,but one of them ) cross-platform standard and- even more importantly- as a development tool not requiring designers have extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the web .
This discussion is important - and the one about H.264 and future of internet in general- because it will be decisive in near future which policy is implemented and we'll be stuck with whichever road they decide to take for years to come.In that sense it has long ceased to be just about Flash, or even Apple or Adobe . It's about what the internet will look like in near future and consequently also about freedom of choice ( for users and developers).
what of those that want a mobile egg frying experience?
@ddddd Apple just purchased Siri, do some research and you'll see why Adobe is showing you something that'll be launched system wide in an iPhone update.
being cute is one thing, but having actual functionality and usability is what we actually need...
@ddddd Can I vote you up a million times? Problem is apple have damaged the rep of a major aspect of the web as we know it and don't give a shit once they sell their computers.
There are consequences to this shit slinging and Apple seem to want to just break the web for the sake of their ipad.
HTML5 for video playback, Flash or Silverlight for etcetera.
@ddddd it's not a "crap app you have to pay for" it will be integrated into the GUI for free, Flash can do many awesome things, I actually took the time and effort to learn Actionscript, but it has a long way to go, and I feel like Flash development went into slow motion when Adobe acquired it from Macromedia, they still pump innovative updates, but it's a murderer on the CPU, if they fixed those issues, then we could all sit down together and watch HD flash videos in 1080p without any frames dropping and live in peace, we'll see how 10.1 goes
Yes, we're going to have unblockable HTML5 ads, poorly written JavaScript web apps and video streaming which is going to fry eggs the same way as Flash does, because it's all the same. Same ECMA script interpreter, same H.264 or Ogg codecs... How it can make any difference? They can't even make video component standard in HTML5. I'm not even touching live streaming, which is currently supported by proprietary Apple technologies.
@alex904 ..sad thing is how twisted it all became just for a power grab by a brand that is on the edge of a major backlash and will let the users down just because they bs'ed themselves into a corner now. Priceless. Now you got people going around repeating that some video decoding doesn't consume power and the major engine for rich content sucks...it's magical crap like this that really shows how young the web is and how anything goes under capitalism. Looks like germany lost the war but fascism didn't. Pseudo brand ideology at its best for the dumb masses.
Aren't we cooking food on our Iphones? They heat up so much. I use nine as a Warner during those brutal NYC winters :P
The bloke who is CEO of Mpeg-la is a shady character it seems ( I wouldn't buy a used car from that guy):
http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MPEG-LA-owned_Patent_Troll_Sues_Smartphone_Makers
I don't get it - HTML% CPU is ten times WORSE than flash.......this entire article therefore is a load of absolute horse dodo.....
@Aristophrenia Yes, you dont get it, we can see that. CPU load playing back a video using HTML5 tags cant be higher load than flash because it uses the appropriate decoder directly instead of an unnecessary and poorly coded layer in between that is flash.
That would be the same as claiming a h.264 encoded movie played back by your favourite video player results in higher CPU load than a flash flick. Which is nonsense.
@Bahumbug
Ummm - yeah, thanks I think you will find the net has been pretty full the last few weeks from people demonstrating HTM5 cpu MUNCHING and a CRUNCHING its way through HTM5 BLOATWARE as it crashes and smashes its way through flash comparisons - OUTSIDE OF MERE VIDEO !!
But since thats all flash does - video - i guess you are right. wow. good on you - thanks for correcting me.
Apparently none of you remember what life was like before the days of Flash video. It sucked! Lame codecs everywhere. Embedded quicktime at that time sucked(not much better now). Remember Real Audio/Video, there's a winner. What about Java based video players? It was a disaster. Then came Adobe who unified all of the video playback to one easy plugin. Adobe did us a huge favor with FLV.
HTML 5 will be nice. Great. Flash will get better too. How about we let the consumers choose and have both.
Apple wants to be the one who owns the ads so they hate Adobe. Opera wants to proxy the video feed so don't want another layer in between the browser and the video feed. I get it.
For the majority of the rest of the world Flash is a good option and will be even better with 10.1. Adobe will always have its place in the internet in the browser world whether or not Opera / Apple like it.
@gagoh Flash hasnt gotten better ever since. They keep dangling that flash 10.1 carrot before our nose for how long now? 6 months? 9 months? In 2008 they said flash 10 can be offloaded to GPU. Issue was, the website designer had to manually activiate that - almost nobody knew or did that. Theyve been talking about 10.1 for so long now with betas and previews and release candidates, as if it is an operating system and all it does is offload the shoddy flash code to the GPU resulting in less visible load but not lower power consumption - yes, I've meassured it. My ancient Q6600 quadcore handles todays flash no less power efficient than my video card. Sad but true.
The problem here is, Adobe is obviously overstrained with the task of streamlining and optimizing flash. Even now, that the shit is flying at them from almost every direction, they cant seem to get their act together.
@Bahumbug
Well I wouldn't agree that Flash hasn't gotten better, but the fact is running HD video on the CPU is taxing, that's just the way it is. Being able to offload it to the GPU is obviously going to be better and as you can imagine it's not a trivial task. With ATI / NVidia / Intel GPU's on Windows alone then throw in OSX and then ARM based phones and others... you can see the scope of the challenge for Adobe. They have to address it and they will. In a few months once all of this is addressed people will soon forget how long it took and quietly be enjoying Hulu with nary an issue.
The issue isn't that they can't get their act together the issue is that its just hard. The good thing is that with all of the Apple / Adobe feud attention hopefully this means Adobe will get more resources on these projects and get these things out.
I have a question. An actual question.. not a start to some flash vs. HTML5 fight. But why would HTML5 video work better on a mobile device than a flash video? Because HTML5 videos play much worse than flash ones on both my mac and my windows computers... I don't fully understand why it would be different on a phone.
@zsmorr The Flash haters will ignore this. I've tried responding to many rubbish comments about HTML5 vs Flash with questions about current HTML5 performance and it's always ignored. I think most of them haven't done any of their own research into this debate and are just believing anything Steve Jobs says. Sad.
Whatever you decide to play your h.264 video on, it is going to run up your CPU in order to decode. That or it will pull off a GPU.
Basically, something has got to do the processing work. 720p and 1080p aren't cheap in the processing and bandwidth requirements for playback.
As long as you don't need any DRM, dynamic/custom player interfaces, alpha layering support, or many of the other features a Flash or Silverlight container will get you, then I would agree that an HTML5 tag is the way to go... assuming you are using a browser that supports it.
Cases like the Netflix website - they just can't use plain HTML5 for streaming content. The movie studios require DRM so you have to go Flash or Silverlight. Or you make a desktop application like they did with the iPhone.
hey apple, here's how we say thanks for allowing our browser.
@ddddd I agree with that wall of text but it wasn't us who started that debate.The link between HTML5 ,H.264 and Flash was made by Steve Jobs and his open letter.The entire deabte was in fact sparked by that letter and folks starting to pick that apart and analyze it. It's apparent a lot in that letter is either very debatable or plain and simply false . It's even more apparent the motivation for his stance has nothing to do with wanting to have open standards or an "open nature " of the web .
The debate isn't about codec and/or standards anymore,it's about control : who has it, what they do with it and what that means to developers and users.
Best soltion would be for MPEG-la to offer clarity on several issues :
- disclose the exact make-up of perecentages/benefits etc. of its participants . How much percent is owned by whom? etc. everything should be published.
- how much are the currently charging and which licensees are paying those fees?
- extend the existing license to be valid indefinitely , not 5 years , so users and others know exactly how things stand .
- make sure management of MPEG-la doesn't have any conflict of interest whatsoever. In other words the management should be wholly independent .
- disclose their policies regarding open source codecs like Theora once and for all. What we have now is Jobs saying "they might go after theora and others " , not exactly a reassuring bit of info for users of that particular codec or any other currently used open source codec. That should be put in writing and not subject to change ,same goes for the license .
These CEOs always give us the half story in their attempt to prove a point. The truth is that if they all would work harder together instead of debating each other, they would make both FLASH and HTML5 better products.
Did anyone else read the title to say "Opra Wades into Flash Debate..."
Man I need some new glasses...