Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > iPad: Killer App that will get you to open your wallet ?

iPad: Killer App that will get you to open your wallet ? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2010, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Apple provides access to the GPU via OpenGL, CoreImage, CoreVideo, QuickTime X, and OpenCL. Why can't Adobe use these?
Good question. How does Quake Live do it?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2010, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Apple provides access to the GPU via OpenGL, CoreImage, CoreVideo, QuickTime X, and OpenCL. Why can't Adobe use these?
Why would Adobe want to? Adobe makes money off Flash.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2010, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Uh, he's talking about translations to English, like KJV, NKJV, NAB, NLT, etc.
Oh. FAIL on my part.
     
CollinG3G4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2010, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Why would Adobe want to? Adobe makes money off Flash.
Seriously. Adobe isn't going to devote time and money developing a propriety version of Flash specially for a the iPad. Hell, we can barley get a functioning Mac version as it is.

As much as I hate to say it, Flash is an internet standard. A third of my bookmarked sites would become worthless with the iPad. I really don't understand how Apple could release a product that lacks the usual "awe" factor. Sure, I guess they forfeited features (USB, multitasking, video output) at the cost of a low introductory price. However, the lack of functionality, in my opinion, seriously outweighs the price.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2010, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Why would Adobe want to? Adobe makes money off Flash.
That doesn't make any sense.
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2010, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Why would Adobe want to? Adobe makes money off Flash.
I think he was saying that Adobe should use one or more of these for the Flash player to make it stop hogging CPU, not instead of it. So the fact that they make money off Flash shouldn’t discourage their use of the tech.

I’m not really sure what the deal is with the contention that Apple blocks use of the GPU. Obviously, given the APIs/tech that tetenal mentioned, the GPU per se isn’t off-limits to developers. Maybe it’s specifically H.264 acceleration they’re talking about?
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by slugslugslug View Post
I’m not really sure what the deal is with the contention that Apple blocks use of the GPU. Obviously, given the APIs/tech that tetenal mentioned, the GPU per se isn’t off-limits to developers. Maybe it’s specifically H.264 acceleration they’re talking about?
I think this whole thing goes back to this post:
Daring Fireball: Apple, Adobe, and Flash
Q. Why is hardware decoding of H.264 only supported on the Windows platform?

A. In Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under Linux and Mac OS. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs. We will continue to evaluate when to support this feature on Mac and Linux platforms in future releases.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 03:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by slugslugslug View Post
I think he was saying that Adobe should use one or more of these for the Flash player to make it stop hogging CPU, not instead of it. So the fact that they make money off Flash shouldn’t discourage their use of the tech.

I’m not really sure what the deal is with the contention that Apple blocks use of the GPU. Obviously, given the APIs/tech that tetenal mentioned, the GPU per se isn’t off-limits to developers. Maybe it’s specifically H.264 acceleration they’re talking about?
Undoubtedly. That much is true. Apple does give access to that through QuickTime, of course, but I guess Adobe's too special to use that like everyone else. And regardless, Flash is far less efficient at playing video than, say, VLC, which is subject to the same limitations.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 11:48 AM
 
You guys really are missing the point. One big point of Flash is to displace Quicktime usage and everything else on the net. Adobe has no desire whatsoever to have anything to do with Quicktime if they can help it. With Flash, Adobe completely bypasses Quicktime and makes it completely irrelevant to the net, and because of that Apple is pissed.

This is a business issue for corporate control of specific aspects of web display. For a while it was Quicktime in the lead, with Windows Media gaining on Quicktime, and then Flash came out of nowhere and decimated both Quicktime and Windows Media. Both technologies were rendered almost obsolete in a matter of years, at least for video display.

In internetland, Adobe's Flash smacked down Quicktime for video display, fair and square. Apple's response was to sulk and take its ball and go home, by not allowing Flash at all in its new OS. Apple wants control, but lost it, so it's trying absolutely everything it can to win it back.

Furthermore, if iPhone OS becomes more of a success in the future for non-phone devices (iPad), and Flash is still prevented from being on that OS, then the regulators will look hard at Apple for monopolistic practices. What Apple is hoping for is that won't happen before HTML5 becomes ubiquitous. So, they have a very tight time frame here.

It almost makes me wonder if Apple is sandbagging in the iPad partially for this reason. They want it to be successful, and successful enough to push HTML5 adoption, but not too successful initially while HTML5 is still in its infancy.
( Last edited by Eug; Feb 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM. )
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 11:48 AM
 
Steve Jobs says no to Flash, so no Flash.
Steve Jobs says there is no need for multitasking, so no multitasking.
Steve Jobs says iPad is revolutionary, so buy the iPad.

Steve Jobs says you are stupid if you disagree.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 11:51 AM
 
Are you saying Apple fans are Jobs' controlled lemmings?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
You guys really are missing the point. One big point of Flash is to displace Quicktime usage and everything else on the net. Adobe has no desire whatsoever to have anything to do with Quicktime if they can help it.
Just because the Flash plug-in on Mac would use QuickTime X internally for accelerated H.264 decoding, doesn't mean there would be "QuickTime usage on the net". It would be stupid not to make use of an API just because it shares the name with a competing plug-in.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:14 PM
 
Adobe's Flash using Quicktime X means Apple is in complete control of Flash video acceleration on the Mac platform. Apple wants this, and Adobe does not.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Adobe's Flash using Quicktime X means Apple is in complete control of Flash video acceleration on the Mac platform. Apple wants this, and Adobe does not.
So, Flash / Adobe has/had the choice of

a) Apple being in control of video acceleration
b) having no video acceleration at all and delivering crappy performance.

That Adobe chose b) is reason alone to let Flash die.

-t
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:24 PM
 
That's what Apple is hoping you'll believe. Adobe is undoubted trying to get Apple to expose more of the OS to them, but Apple won't allow it, for good reasons.

And no, the reasons are NOT technical per se. They're purely business reasons.

This is a turf war, and in this turf war so far Apple is winning in the PR department. Apple makes all sorts of BS claims about Adobe's Flash in order to win over Apple geeks in the anti-Flash war. At least Adobe is being relatively honest about it, although it has to as it is at a severe disadvantage here.

It sort of reminds me about Apple's H.264 push, at the expense of VC-1. Apple pushed H.264 heavily. Why? Not because VC-1 is inferior. In fact far from it. Both H.264 and VC-1 are excellent and both apparently have advantages over the other. However, VC-1 is primarily a Microsoft tech which is why Apple tried hard not to have any of its software deal with VC-1.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Adobe's Flash using Quicktime X means Apple is in complete control of Flash video acceleration on the Mac platform. Apple wants this, and Adobe does not.
If you're saying that Adobe wants direct access to the GPU bypassing the OS entirely, then yes, Apple doesn't want this. Apple won't give them a Flash.kext so that a bug in Flash can panic the whole machine instead of just crashing the plug-in process.

I don't see any problem with using QuickTime X for H.264. They can always fall back to their software decoder should they want to do something really really fancy. For 99.9% of web video out there QuickTime X decoded video should suffice.
( Last edited by TETENAL; Feb 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM. )
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:32 PM
 
You're still talking geek talk, not business talk. That's the ultimate difference here.

Even if Adobe were to do that, they'd still be SOL on the iPhone OS, because Apple just said fsck you to Adobe and prevented them from doing anything at all there.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:34 PM
 
I don't understand what's wrong with Apple pushing open standards and non-proprietary technologies.

You make it seem like it was a bad thing.

-t
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
If you're saying that Adobe wants direct access to the GPU bypassing the OS entirely, then yes, Apple doesn't want this. Apple won't give them a Flash.kext so that a bug in Flash can panic the whole machine instead of just crashing the plug-in process.

I don't see any problem with using QuickTime X for H.264. They can always fall back to their software decoder should they want to do something really really fancy. For 99.9% of web video out there QuickTime X decoded video should suffice.
What's a GUP? A Flash.kext would be ridiculous - do you think Adobe would really try such a thing?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
You're still talking geek talk, not business talk. That's the ultimate difference here.
WTH is this supposed to mean ? Strawman ?

-t
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I don't understand what's wrong with Apple pushing open standards and non-proprietary technologies.

You make it seem like it was a bad thing.
Quicktime is a proprietary Apple technology.
Flash is a competing proprietary Adobe technology.


Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
WTH is this supposed to mean ? Strawman ?
Strawman? No, the point is I'm sure one side could easily give in, from a technical point of view. However, the reasons they won't is because of the business side. Again this is a turf war, and it seems far too many people fail to get this point.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Quicktime is a proprietary Apple technology.
Flash is a competing proprietary Adobe technology.
No, it's not.
Just because both overlap in ONE area (video playback) doesn't make them overall competing technologies.

Bottom line: QT (at its core) is a set of APIs, Flash is everything but.

-t
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:50 PM
 
Arggghh! I'm specifically talking about Flash vs QT in the context of internet content. Quicktime used to be number 1 for video display, and now it's Flash by a huge margin.

Flash obviously doesn't want to turn its OS X players just into a wrapper around QT technologies. It would basically almost make Flash irrelevant on the Mac platform... which is exactly what Apple wants.

Don't believe Apple's PR. It's not about protecting the consumer. It's about gaining control about this piece of the internet pie.

You may be on Apple's side and hope Apple wins, but it seems too many here are blind to the real issues here. If you're going to support Apple, support them with eye's open.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:57 PM
 
Eug, are you saying Apple dislikes Flash because it wants to promote QuickTime? Apple wants to do what's best for its platforms, and what's best for its platforms is not relying on poor performing proprietary third party video solutions.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 12:57 PM
 
Huh ?

AFAIK, using h.264 for video delivery doesn't lock anybody into Quicktime.

h.264 is a OPEN STANDARD, Flash is not.

And yes, for the record, if I have to pick a side, I most certainly will pick Apple over Adobe. That's a complete no brainer.

-t
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Arggghh! I'm specifically talking about Flash vs QT in the context of internet content.
And I was specifically not about talking about QuickTime in the context of internet content. I was talking about QuickTime X, the programming interface.

QuickTime in the context of internet content is dead for a long time. Nobody is talking about it any more. Not even Apple, which is pushing H.264.

Flash obviously doesn't want to turn its OS X players just into a wrapper around QT technologies. It would basically almost make Flash irrelevant on the Mac platform...
And how would Flash using QuickTime X for the purpose of accelerated H.264 decoding make Flash irrelevant? Can you explain why this would be the case technically? It's not like Mac users would not have to install Flash any more if that were the case.

Did using Carbon make Flash irrelevant on Mac?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Huh ?

AFAIK, using h.264 for video delivery doesn't lock anybody into Quicktime.

h.264 is a OPEN STANDARD, Flash is not.
??? Flash already supports H.264, outside Quicktime. H.264 is an open standard, but Quicktime is not. You guys are basically advocating that Adobe make Flash into a wrapper of QT technologies.

That might be easier for us, but Adobe sure as hell would never go for it.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
??? Flash already supports H.264, outside Quicktime.
Did you miss that the point of this discussion was GPU acceleration?
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
H.264 is an open standard, but Quicktime is not.
Also H.264 is a video codec and QuickTime X, in the context I'm talking about, is a programming interface. Video codec <-> API. Two completely different things.
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
You guys are basically advocating that Adobe make Flash into a wrapper of QT technologies.
No, we're not.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 02:27 PM
 
To clarify: Mac OS X's multimedia programming library is called "QuickTime." It's used in pretty much any place on a Mac where you see multimedia content being played. If you're making a Mac program (or even a plugin to another program) and you want to play video, this is the best way to do it. Adobe acknowledges that its current solution for playing video in Flash is inferior to this, but for some reason it doesn't occur to Adobe that it's free for them to use.

There is also a QuickTime plugin for browsers that is used to play embedded multimedia content on the Web using the QuickTime framework, but nobody is talking about that here.

There is also an old video wrapper format called a "QuickTime movie," but nobody is talking about this either.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Feb 1, 2010 at 03:01 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 02:37 PM
 
What we are talking about is whether or not Adobe could use QuickTime to accelerate the Flash video format. Adobe either doesn't think so or is lying about it, and Apple doesn't seem to care because it doesn't want Flash anywhere near the iPhone OS.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
King Bob On The Cob
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 10:55 AM
 
So, Adobe wrote a bad H.264 decoder (Youtube videos are all H.264 on the backend), refuses to learn to use Apple tech, complains about it, releases a plugin that performs poorly, then wonders why Apple won't let them into their closed system.

If they really could do it (Write a plugin for the iPhone), I would have expected them to release the plugin to the jailbreakers at this point. Apple always has relented on tech if the hackers could do it. Then they could say, "Look at what the phone could do, if only Apple would let us!"
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 12:35 PM
 
Adobe doesn't like dealing with hackers either.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 08:50 PM
 
Hold on everyone: QuickTime X only provides for h264 hardware decoding on the Nvidia M9400. Adobe rewriting Flash as some kind of QuickTime sub-architechure would only benefit some, not all, Mac users.

Flash on Windows can employ GPU acceleration regardless of hardware. It's not just h264 related, but older Flash videos and games can use it too. APIs matter. Apple has decided against developing APIs that only Flash bother to use.

Apple is uninterested in Flash on the iPhone/iPad because a) Flash games would compete with native games, if they worked at all without keyboard/mouse, b) h264 is the future, and Flash-delivered h264 is pointless middleware, and c) Flash is buggy, slow, and crashy. It has nothing to do with QuickTime.

YouTube, DailyMotion, and Vimeo are moving to h264, the rest of the web will follow, except for Flash gaming sites. Flash is being abandoned for video delivery.

Regarding VC-1, Apple didn't license it because it would be a pointless waste of money. Why licence a codec from Microsoft, when the entire MPEG group is working together? Microsoft tried to go it alone and they ended up alone.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
So, Flash / Adobe has/had the choice of

a) Apple being in control of video acceleration
b) having no video acceleration at all and delivering crappy performance.

That Adobe chose b) is reason alone to let Flash die.
I find it highly unlikely that Flash could be implemented as a QuickTime plugin.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Furthermore, if iPhone OS becomes more of a success in the future for non-phone devices (iPad), and Flash is still prevented from being on that OS, then the regulators will look hard at Apple for monopolistic practices.
That is not gonna happen. Adobe isn't even close to ready to put Flash on any phone, they only have Flash Lite. You can't complain about being excluded if you don't have a product to exclude.

Abode claimed they had a Flash app ready for the iPhone. It quite certainly only provided games and videos in a dedicated player (like the dedicated YouTube app). Apple doesn't permit any third-party middleware, so Adobe can't claim to being treated unfairly. They are being treated the same as every other company.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I find it highly unlikely that Flash could be implemented as a QuickTime plugin.
Gah! WTF, people? NOBODY. SAID. THAT.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Hawkeye_a  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Gah! WTF, people? NOBODY. SAID. THAT.
I thought Flash was developed by Apple inside QuickTime in the 90s, and then Adobe purchased it and re-implemented it for Windows and then re-ported the windows code to the Mac and thats why the performance sucks. It's possible that Apple would prefer it's old implementation of Flash and wants Adobe to stop using ported Windows code and instead opt for what Apple had done before Flash was purchased by Macromedia(if it existed). But that would mean that Apple would have to emulate classic MacOS and 68k to enable this to happen, which means we stand a very good chance of getting Classic support back into OSX. The only question is if the Classic Apps will have the new Aqua look or something even better.... maybe even Distilled-Aqua ! Awesome!!!




     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Regarding VC-1, Apple didn't license it because it would be a pointless waste of money. Why licence a codec from Microsoft, when the entire MPEG group is working together? Microsoft tried to go it alone and they ended up alone.
Actually, I don't think Apple should have licenced VC-1, and never claimed they should. I was just pointing out what VC-1 was, and how it affected Apple's implementation of its software. Apple supported HD DVD in its DVD Studio Pro software, and DVD Player.app supports non-DRM'd HD DVD playback, but specfically excluded VC-1 support even though VC-1 was a mandatory component of commercial HD DVD. The exclusion of VC-1 is not because it isn't a standard. It's because of a turf war. That's all moot now though since HD DVD is dead.

Ironically however, if Apple ever decide to implement Blu-ray, Apple will effectively be licencing VC-1, since VC-1 is also a mandatory component of Blu-ray as well. It's not as if MS as actually did completely "go it alone" in one sense, since VC-1 was officially adopted by the SMPTE as a recognized standard. Furthermore, MS is not the only patent holder for VC-1. Other patent holders include companies like Dolby, Sony, Toshiba, and Panasonic. Absent from the list though is Apple of course.

Mainly, I was just shocked that someone here hadn't heard of VC-1, since a large chunk of Blu-ray discs available utilize it.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
To clarify: Mac OS X's multimedia programming library is called "QuickTime." It's used in pretty much any place on a Mac where you see multimedia content being played. If you're making a Mac program (or even a plugin to another program) and you want to play video, this is the best way to do it. Adobe acknowledges that its current solution for playing video in Flash is inferior to this, but for some reason it doesn't occur to Adobe that it's free for them to use.

There is also a QuickTime plugin for browsers that is used to play embedded multimedia content on the Web using the QuickTime framework, but nobody is talking about that here.
Ok then, I don't have any idea what you're trying to say here. You want Flash to use "Mac OS X's multimedia programming library is called QuickTime" but not when viewing Flash content on the web? When you they be using it then?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 04:00 PM
 
If I understand what he's saying, when VLC plays some videos, it utilizes Quicktime without being Quicktime. He's saying Flash should do something similar.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Ok then, I don't have any idea what you're trying to say here. You want Flash to use "Mac OS X's multimedia programming library is called QuickTime" but not when viewing Flash content on the web? When you they be using it then?
I want Flash to use the multimedia playback library called QTKit to play video with hardware acceleration. This is not remotely the same thing as making Flash a QuickTime plugin (unless you also believe iTunes and Boxee are just QuickTime plugins).
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 04:10 PM
 
Would that even help people with Flash problems on say G4s and G5? Cuz in reality, there is no significant issue for the masses with Flash playback on Intel Macs.

I suppose it would help with ARM though.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Would that even help people with Flash problems on say G4s and G5? Cuz in reality, there is no significant issue for the masses with Flash playback on Intel Macs.

I suppose it would help with ARM though.
It would only help with problems in video playback on systems that have hardware-accelerated video decoding. This doesn't include any G4s or G5s AFAIK. But Flash playback uses a lot of power even on my MBP 2.5 GHz.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
This is not remotely the same thing as making Flash a QuickTime plugin (unless you also believe iTunes and Boxee are just QuickTime plugins).
Yes, I know the difference.
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I want Flash to use the multimedia playback library called QTKit to play video with hardware acceleration.
I still don't think this is possible.

When you see Flash video on the web, it's really a program running on the Flash plugin, and that program loads and plays the video. The plugin assists with decoding, and perhaps the plugin could pass off the decoding to QuickTime, but that would only provide hardware acceleration if the video is encoded in h264 (not all Flash is, I think most is h263) and if the Mac has an Nvidia 9400M.

[Minor correction: QuickTime would use the best resources possible, including multiple processor cores or vectorization engines, so there could be improvement to video playback on non-9400M Macs]

The real slowdown of Flash is not the decoding of video, but the running of the Flash program which is playing the video. That's why all Flash on the web is so slow, whether it is Flash video or ads or games.

It's the Flash program interpreter which needs acceleration, not the decoding. To take a wild guess, it's the Flash compositing engine which benefits from GPU acceleration, but that can't be passed off to QuickTime.

Lots of ifs and guessing here, but my main point is hardware video decoding isn't the issue, and wouldn't solve everyones' problems even if it were.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Feb 3, 2010 at 04:46 PM. Reason: Minor correction above)
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
To take a wild guess, it's the Flash compositing engine which benefits from GPU acceleration, but that can't be passed off to QuickTime.
Can be passed off to OpenGL.
Lots of ifs and guessing here, but my main point is hardware video decoding isn't the issue, and wouldn't solve everyones' problems even if it were.
Then why did hardware decoding improve performance on Windows?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 05:11 PM
 
Hardware decoding wouldn't solve all the problems with Flash, but it would at least be a step in the right direction. So far, Adobe seems more or less willing to let the Mac languish, and that is why a lot of us don't care to see the Internet controlled by them.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 07:30 AM
 
Firefox for Maemo RC3 - blog.pavlov.net

"We’ve decided to disable plugin […] support for this release [of Firefox for the Nokia 900]. The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn’t meet our standards."
     
Hawkeye_a  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Can be passed off to OpenGL.

Then why did hardware decoding improve performance on Windows?
Exactly. Also, Apple on it's OS has CoreVideo and CoreImage, which i assume harness OpenCL for performance. Quicktime is a media layer built on top of that.

If Adobe was really interested in Apple's systems, they would have built this app(Flash) from the ground up within the past decade that MacOSX has been available.

Instead they insist on shoehorning legacy code to work on the Mac, while Windoze users get updated and optomized applications(Photoshop included).

I WILL NOT BUY an iPad/iPhone if it supports Flash in it's current form. I would rather petition content providers to move away from Flash and onto a higher-quality alternative with better(IMO) business models for licenses.

The ONLY reason i use PhotoShop is cause there is no real alternative on the Mac, but as soon as something with a similar feature set comes out that uses the under-pinnings(CoreImage, OpenCL, etc) of OSX, ill move.

OSX has been out for almost 10 years. OSX has been on intel processors for 4 years. Adobe needs to invest more in it's Mac products imo.
     
Hawkeye_a  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:01 AM
 
Been looking at the iPad a bit more, and for the most part, i really think this is the 'next step'. Im sure there might have been tablets with linux OSs, etc... but this product pretty much covers all necessary angles for a 'user'.

I've come to the realization that the main point of these devices is information/content...... things like multi-tasking/filesystems/booting/formats/etc...are unnecessary details that do not(and should not) concern end-users at the end of the day.

The main problems with content has been 1. Delivery, which has been solved with broadband(and now cellular). 2. Licensing, and no other company has been able to negotiate(on a global basis) the deals necessary to deliver content to their devices(including computers). 3. Complication. it needs to be easier than buying a CD/DVD. And iTunes nailed it by simply being a single window app. These pieces have all been done before to varying degrees of success, but not nearly as simple as the way Apple has done. And that's what appeals to the end-users. If u used Symbian/WindowsCE/WinMo, they were so f'in complicated to do simple things, that it seemed unfathomable to use them to buy content (heck purchasing contend on the desktop OSs like Windows/Linux seem intimidating until iTunes).

Applications(which i classify as a form of 'content')..the App store attached to the device....The previous model involved side-loading apps, which means having to hunt for trusted sources of apps, trusting ur CC# with unknown websites, no way to verify the app you download is 'clean', and required end-users to connect the dots and have working knowledge of filesystems/instal/uninstall processes, etc...which scared off end users(and myself, despite being in 'the industry').

So for the things that need to be done...things like..i want to do email, watch a movie, listen to music, check news, check weather, stocks, read a book, etc...it's all in this device in a way which doent require me to read a manual/research to get it to do the things i want.

Multi-tasking is not a downside cause im not managing multiple apps/documents simultaneously anyway, as a single app takes up the whole screen, which is probably the way 90% of people work(unless theyre on windows and need anti-viruses, etc running.). Flash... thanks for nothing for the past decade on OSX, i look forward to using my Apple devices free of that application, and im glad content providers are delivering their content via other means.

And now, the only single actual downside to this device...... the lack of a web-cam for voice/video chat using this device. thats the only missing piece for me as a user.

And as much as a i WANT an iPad, i might just put it off until the low end model gets an iSight.

Cheers
     
Judge_Fire
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 06:12 PM
 
Here's some technical background on Adobe's challenges in getting Flash to run better on the Mac.

"The support for the Core Animation drawing model was originally driven by Apple and we have worked feverishly to finish the engineering work on both sides. Yes that's right: This was and is a joint effort between Apple and Adobe engineers."
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,